The Lord Bishop of Southwell

George Henry, Lord Bishop of Southwell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Courts Martial

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether courts martial have been abolished in the Armed Forces and, if so, what is intended to replace them.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government have no plans to abolish courts martial. Indeed, the Government welcome the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that, as a whole, the court martial system, with its safeguards to guarantee its independence and impartiality, is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not true that, at present, courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not true that courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy or anywhere else. It is true that in January there will not be courts martial held in the Navy, but I understand that they will begin again in February and will continue as before.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not the case that in the European Court, to which my noble friend the Minister referred, the proceedings of courts martial were upheld in general but there was criticism of Royal Navy courts martial, as distinct from those in the other armed services, because the Judge Advocate was an officer in the Royal Navy, not an independent civilian?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Court concluded that the position of a Judge Advocate did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial for two main reasons: first, the use of a serving naval officer in that role and, secondly, the appointment of judge advocates to individual trials by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate—a serving naval officer. We have accordingly decided that the first should cease. Regarding the second, a remedial order was laid before both Houses on 15 January 2004, under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to deal with the problem, which is provided for by statute.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I find that conclusion by the European Court of Human Rights somewhat hard to follow, especially given the evidence of there being no suspicion whatsoever of any bias in the review of courts martial in the Navy over the past 10 years. The ruling is a bitter blow to naval lawyers, whose dedication to the administration of justice in the Royal Navy is highly regarded, not just in the Navy, but by the highest courts in the land, and to the huge number of people who turn to naval lawyers for their assistance and advice. The conclusion also undermines the executive in the maintenance of good order and service discipline. We should regret that trend and the lack of recognition that there are areas where the Armed Forces are, by necessity, different from other walks of life. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything possible to arrest the trend, or, at the least, safeguard the pre-eminence of the presidents of courts martial?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who speaks with great experience on this issue. While we welcome that the Court ruled that, as a whole, the service courts martial system is compliant with the convention on human rights, we are disappointed that the Court concluded that the use of uniformed judge advocates did not constitute a sufficiently strong guarantee of independence. However, I stress that the Court did not find any actual bias in the operation of naval courts martial. I should like to take the opportunity which the noble and gallant Lord has afforded me to pay tribute to the work of naval judge advocates in the maintenance of the disciplinary system. I have been most impressed by the professional response to the Court's judgment and by the speed and efficiency with which the necessary amendments to the courts martial system have been implemented.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, am I right in saying that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was of the Grand Chamber—that is to say, a very large number was unanimous—and that the central holding was that the pivotal role of the judge advocate deprived naval courts martial of one of the most significant guarantees of independence enjoyed by the other services' courts martial, the Army and Air Force courts martial systems, being the same for all relevant purposes? Does the Minister agree that it would be very strange if justice were in some way less robust for the admirable members of the Royal Navy than it was for the other two armed services?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that there could be any serious suggestion that, in practice, as shown over many years, discipline and courts martial are more robust in terms of independence and impartiality in one of the services than in another. However, I pay tribute to the noble Lord's undoubted expertise in this field. He is right that it was indeed the Grand Chamber and that it was indeed unanimous. There has been a difference between the courts martial systems in the Royal Navy on the one hand and the Army and the Royal Air Force on the other. As soon as we can possibly find parliamentary time for it, from 2005–06 onwards—I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as the matter is of great interest to him—we intend that there should be a tri-service Act to sort out this matter once and for all.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say when he first became aware of the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and why an opportunity was not taken in the quinquennial review of 2001 to rectify these difficulties?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as I think I replied to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, we regret that the Court found as it did. We believe that the system worked perfectly well. However, we have been signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights for many years now, under governments of both parties, and when the Court rules, of course we take the necessary action.

United Nations Security Council

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will support the modernisation of the United Nations Security Council.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Security Council is at the heart of the international system, having the primary responsibility for dealing with threats to international peace and security. The Government believe that it performs that function well. There is scope, however, to improve the composition and functioning of the council. In particular, the Government are a long-standing supporter of enlargement of the council, in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, in order to ensure that it better represents the modern world.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government would not support the membership of any country that had an unacceptable human rights record, had no respect for the United Nations and did not implement UN resolutions? Can she also tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will support democracy, accountability and the rule of law at the United Nations Security Council?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. We judge all candidates for Security Council membership against the criterion laid down in the UN charter—the contribution that a country makes to the maintenance of international peace and security and the other purposes of the UN. I should also like to make it clear that implementation of the obligations under Security Council resolutions and respect for the fundamental principles of the charter, such as human rights, obviously forms a key part of the judgment. We would urge all countries to fulfil the obligations under the charter and under the relevant Security Council resolutions. That continues to form part of our bilateral dialogue.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the UN Secretary-General, who said, in his very impressive speech in September, that the great priority is to fit the Security Council to deal with the threats and challenges of the 21st century, which it has unfortunately been somewhat frustrated in doing in recent years, and that it is to that aspect of the Security Council's work that priority must be given?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in the way that he sets out the challenges that the Secretary-General put forward last year. I am delighted to take this opportunity to say that the noble Lord is a member of the Secretary-General's new high-level panel on reform. I agree with him. Noble Lords might be asking themselves, "What does an effective UN system look like?" It is a system that can tackle the full range of insecurities faced by its members: poverty; disease; environmental change; abuse of human rights; and more recently, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government consider that changes are needed in the size and composition of the Security Council and in its method of working, which was largely laid down in the United Nations Charter? My interest is that I was a member of the United Kingdom permanent delegation in its early days: 1948 to 1952.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer the noble Lord's question in the context of his great experience at the United Nations. The UK has put forward a model of Security Council enlargement that would increase overall membership from 15 to 24 additional permanent members and four additional non-permanent members. We support Japan and Germany as candidates for permanent seats, in recognition of their major contribution to the work of the UN. We have suggested that three further permanent seats should go to representatives of the developing world from Africa, Asia and the Latin American countries, so that the UN reflects the modern world and its needs.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in any reform of the Security Council it is to become more representative of the world of the 21st century, as distinct from 1945? There are anxieties to be addressed about the attitude of the rest of the world to European representation. At the moment, there are two permanent Security Council members from Europe. It is suggested that Germany might well become a member, and some people are advocating that the European Union should also have a seat on the Security Council. What is the Government's position towards resolving this issue?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the charter states that only member nations should become members of the Security Council. The charter would have to be amended to include the EU as a composite member. Even if the charter was amended to allow that, it would not be in the interests of either the EU or the UK to replace current representation on the Security Council with a single EU seat. The European Union currently has four of the 15 members of the Council, and a fifth member, Romania, usually aligns itself with positions agreed under the common foreign and security policy.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I remind the Minister that Romania is not yet a member of the European Union. Will the Minister recognise that many of us, on these Benches at least, support a stronger authority for the United Nations and are deeply sorry to see how much its authority has been damaged in the past two years? Will the Government take on board that when the high-level panel to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, belongs, reports to the Secretary-General, many of us would like to see a British Government response and have the opportunity to debate that response in this Chamber?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, yes, I am aware that Romania is not a member of the EU. That is why I said that it also agrees with EU members. I spent much of the weekend reading the noble Lord's thinking on UN reform in the publication The World Today. It was a rainy weekend. He urges European governments to combine their weight in global institutions to grapple with the agenda on UN reform. I agree with him. I hope to reassure him that the United Kingdom Government support the high-level panel, are looking forward to working closely with it, and will eventually enjoy reading its report when it arrives.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, would the Minister approve of additional members of the Security Council having a veto?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, this is a tricky one. At the moment, we do not take a firm position. While it is obviously not attractive to create two classes of permanent membership, it also seems unlikely that an extension of the veto to new members will be acceptable to the majority of UN members. The status quo is therefore the most likely outcome.

Lord Desai: My Lords, would it not be better if we replaced the veto with the qualified majority voting system?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I will certainly think about that.

Higher Education: Middle Eastern and Asian Language Studies

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to encourage British students in United Kingdom universities to study Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the numbers of students taking Chinese, Japanese, other Asian and Middle Eastern languages, literature and culture courses in the United Kingdom's higher education institutions increased by 29 per cent over the past two years. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has provided £3 million more over the past three years to fund minority subjects at risk. The Government launched a strategy promoting modern foreign languages in England in December 2002. Through that, we are promoting language learning to students and pupils choosing A-level courses.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on his new job. That is the best Answer that I have ever heard him give in this House. Given his expertise in British higher education, and given that language acquisition is the best weapon of mass instruction, how does he expect Britain's military, intelligence and diplomatic services to recruit the vital linguists that they need to do their jobs when so few British universities teach Arabic, and important languages like Berber and Pushtu are taught in none of our universities? Will he address the important question of postgraduate studies in Islamic studies and Middle Eastern studies? There is a severe imbalance in the number of British students as opposed to foreign students pursuing such studies. In 2001, of 737 postgraduate students, only 12 were British. When it comes to Britain's security, are languages not matters of life and death?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for his kind comments about my first Answer. He is right that it was the best answer that I have given, and I hope that this one will not be too bad either.
	I accept the point that languages are vital to conducting a successful foreign policy and to intelligence community work. Nothing compels any student to study any subject. All that can be done is to try to make it as attractive as possible to students to pursue a subject, so that they can make informed choices. Happily, this is a story that at least has some signs of green shoots. After a period in which language applications to universities declined considerably, I have already made the point that there has been a sizeable movement in the past couple of years.
	I am happy to say, looking through the statistics, that in relation to Middle Eastern languages, literature and culture, there was a 22 per cent increase in the number of people going into undergraduate courses in the past year. I do not want to overstate the case, but that is an encouraging sign. That was set against the background of a decrease of 6 per cent when one takes all of the modern European languages, which shows a contrast.
	At postgraduate level, the latest figures that I have been able to get from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that there are roughly 250 students enrolled in the relevant courses pertinent to this Question. Eighty-five of them are from the United Kingdom, and 30 are from the EU. I am not convinced that that will be adequate for all the needs about which the noble Lord asked, but it is certainly a move in an encouraging direction.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that it would be desirable to have more study of these languages. However, how can the Government claim to encourage any student to study anything when they propose to load on young people starting in life the highest levels of debt ever known? When those people graduate, the Government will then tax them at higher marginal rates than millionaires.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know from questions asked in the House in even the past couple of days that there is not much evidence of anyone being put off from the pursuit of any course at the moment. In present circumstances, there are no proposals for up-front fees. Better support is being proposed for those who currently receive support as students, and repayment will take place only when people earn above a certain threshold. If the occupation is now in great demand and the supply of students far too limited, as the debate may indicate, that should push up their wages and make it easier to reach the threshold. Those are the economics of the matter.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, I note the Minister's optimism about language take-up but, given that school and university students still show very little interest in even such neighbouring languages as German, I do not think that many of us could have much hope about the take-up of more exotic languages, despite the 22 per cent increase that the Minister noted. Yet there are thousands of native speakers of such exotic languages in this country. Might the Minister reflect on the possibility that our now flourishing specialist language schools might tap into the immigrant community and, perhaps through the setting up of leisure language clubs, might interest and excite pupils into exploring some very different languages—Turkish, Pashto, Farsi, Arabic and so on—and their writing systems? That might have an effect on not only language learning, but community relations.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that there is a very good case for tapping into all those sources. In a rich and diverse cultural community there are such resources, and it will repay some effort to make sure that we are in touch with them. In the strategy that I mentioned in my first response, Languages for All: Languages for Life, the Government have set about a programme of stimulating much more language acquisition from relatively young ages, all the way through to students taking A-levels. That is an exciting programme. The Pathfinder element of the programme shows tremendous reasons for encouragement. Many cities are beginning to develop it across a number of schools and with a great many specialists who have not been involved before. Although that is a long-haul answer—no one acquires languages instantly or gets to university level in a few weeks—it is certainly the start that is needed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister has given us reassuring figures in terms of the increase over the past year. However, how many university departments have closed centres of teaching of modern and Middle Eastern languages in the past 10 years? Has the number of students risen in that time?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the numbers in the areas to which I have referred have risen, although there has been a decline across languages as a whole, certainly over the past five years for which the statistics are more precise. The only university department closing of which I am aware is the University of Durham's department of east Asian studies, which closed in September 2003. That generated a good deal of publicity at the time. Universities are, of course, wholly independent organisations. They make their decisions about which courses they should run without reference, quite rightly, to any considerations other than whether they can attract the students, sustain the courses and offer an acceptable level of research.
	The University of Durham is currently investigating how best it can reintroduce at least part of its teaching programme in Chinese and Japanese at a higher level. That suggests that the market is moving back again in a positive direction.

Foot and Mouth: Payments to Contractors

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they will take to settle the £100 million in outstanding payments to contractors who worked during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in each of the past three financial years, Defra has achieved prompt payment of more than 90 per cent of all valid invoices submitted, with agreement and payment within 30 days. Defra is withholding some £53 million in dispute with businesses in connection with charges arising from the provision of goods, services and works during the foot and mouth outbreak. Those disputes are being resolved through negotiation, mediation, formal investigation and, where necessary, litigation.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, is not the fraudulent case rather a red herring as only 1 per cent of the contractors involved in the foot and mouth epidemic are being investigated for fraud? Indeed, earlier this month, one such case was lost in the High Court at a cost of £2.3 million. With some contractors owed payments for more than 700 days and at least one liable to go into liquidation, I ask the noble Lord what Defra's terms of payment are when entering into a contract.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Defra is governed by the same terms of payment as anyone else. If the invoice is not in dispute we by and large meet it, and we will continue to improve our performance in that respect. As for invoices in dispute, clearly a period of negotiation, sometimes with mediation and legal proceedings, has to take place in defence of government money. Of all the contractors who operated on behalf of the Government during foot and mouth—there were 1,200 or more—there have been serious disputes with only 50, and the vast majority of those cases have been resolved one way or the other. However, there are some outstanding cases, and it is the job of the Government to protect public money in that respect.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given that it is two years since foot and mouth was declared over, will the Minister indicate what legal costs his department has borne in contesting the 50 cases that he mentioned? What has been the cost to the Exchequer?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the total amount of money involved in all the contracting was £1.3 billion. Legal costs covering the whole matter, which includes some of the cases in dispute, amount to about £20 million. Of the 50 that I referred to as being seriously disputed, 29 have been resolved relatively straightforwardly, with 16 resolved through more formal proceedings such as mediation or formal negotiation. Five large outstanding cases are going through legal proceedings, mainly in the High Court.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how much compensation has the United Kingdom Government received from the European Union? How much was expected by the United Kingdom Government originally?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot answer that because we are still in discussion with the Commission. It is certainly the case that our original expectations in relation to the amount that the EU would pay are not likely to be met. However, we are not at the point where those negotiations have been completed.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to that question, is a newspaper article by Christopher Booker incorrect in suggesting that the figure that has not been claimed and that we are likely to lose is £1 billion? I gather that there are only 12 outstanding cases. As other noble Lords have said, two years have passed. Either Defra is inept in handling the matter or there must be some problem. Perhaps the Treasury is unwilling to loan money from its black hole, which gains in size each day.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Baroness's argument at all. In the first place, it behoves every department to pay out taxpayers' money in accordance with claims that are validated. Regrettably, in such a situation, there are queries about many invoices, most of which have been resolved, but some of which appear to represent serious overcharging of one form or another—whether or not they amount to criminal fraud. We must query those. By and large, we are using negotiation and mediation services to resolve them, but we are resolving some of them through legal proceedings.
	The issue of money from the European Union is an entirely different part of the large expenditure that the Government incurred during the foot and mouth epidemic. The only compensation money that might—and will in part—be met by the European Union is direct compensation for loss of animals. The money we are discussing is money that falls entirely to the Exchequer and is money for contractors for clean-up, disinfection, and so on, not money paid in compensation to farmers. So we are discussing two large but different amounts. None of the delay is due to ineptness, it is due to the Government—Defra in particular—safeguarding the public purse.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, will Defra pay interest on the outstanding claims that are eventually proven not to be fraudulent?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are rules governing interest. Defra will cover those in some respects; clearly, if there is a court order, it may well cover that point.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in one case, Cumbria Waste Management Ltd has been chasing its overdue money for more than two years. The company is owned by Cumbria County Council. Is Defra concerned about a serious overcharging in that case?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be wrong to comment on any particular case, especially if it may result in legal action. Many cases have been partly settled with some parts still outstanding, even as regards the 50 to which I referred. However, that does not mean that they have not received any money. Such cases give rise to serious queries about the nature of the invoices submitted.

Trademarks and Origin Marking

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their view of any proposals to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no proposals have been made to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark. The European Commission has produced for discussion with member states and other interests a working document setting out options in considering possible EU origin marking for EU products. The working document does not suggest abolition of national markings such as "Made in Britain", but raises the possibility of an additional label.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Financial Times has carried extracts from the working document that suggest that there are proposals for an EU-wide label of origin. Does the Minister agree that in a zone as disparate as an EU of 25 countries, a label, "Made in the EU", would be about as useful as a label saying, "Made in Asia"? Does he further agree that any such proposal might help manufacturers of Welsh whisky or dress designers in Barnsley hoping to be confused with designers in Milan, but would seriously undermine German, French and British manufacturers that rely on national characteristics to build brand and quality differentiation?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The trouble with any EU marking would be that it was not sufficiently specific. The representations that we have received from industry and consumer organisations make exactly that point. One wants to know that one's Parma ham comes from Italy, not other parts of the EU.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, while we are on the subject of unnecessary EU interference in British industry, what progress has been made on defeating the proposed hallmarking directive?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted to say that there was a lack of agreement in the working party on the hallmarking directive, so it did not go through to COREPER or the Council. It has run out of time under the Italian presidency and is unlikely to be taken up by either the Irish or the Netherlands during their presidencies, so we can assume that it is effectively shelved.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister has said that national trademarks will continue to be granted and existing ones will continue to be effective, what steps will be taken to resolve any differences that may occur between the reports from the Community trademark office and the British trademark office if they disagree about any product or trademark?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Baroness gets a bit ahead of the issue. There is only a discussion, not even a proposal. If it goes forward in any way—there appears to be little enthusiasm for it across Europe—that may become an issue, but it is not one at present.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many consumers would like products, especially in supermarkets, to indicate as local an origin as possible—not just British or UK but within the region in which the supermarket is located—so that people can enter supermarkets in Northern Ireland and see that products are made in Northern Ireland and in the West Country that they are of West Country origin? That would give consumers maximum confidence in the products available.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, noble Lords will appreciate that the system of trademarks in this country is at present entirely voluntary. If there is demand, it is likely that manufacturers will respond to it by making that a point of advantage for their products.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the use of the words, "any proposals" in the Question carries concern with the symbolism of the issue to the point of giving the appearance of total indifference to the content?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the general thrust of that question. I can only repeat that there are no proposals, there is simply a discussion document. It clearly has some symbolism by suggesting that there is some interest in the matter, but we are consulting on the content and will respond in due course.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, just for clarity, can the Minister confirm, on the basis of what he said, that British Government representatives will be instructed to oppose the proposal if it is advanced?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I made clear, it is not a proposal, it is simply a discussion document that sets out three possible ways forward. We have consulted; the consultation has ended; we are now analysing the responses; we are rather sceptical about the whole proposal.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said, will he at least rule out a ridiculous EU compromise, which would be typical, that we should have both EU and national marking? That would be absurd.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, ruling out EU compromises before we have even reached them would be folly. As I said, there is no proposal to get rid of national trademarks, so, by definition, if any proposal were made it would be for an additional label. That would not be a compromise; that is the nature of what is in the discussion document.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as the Minister remarked, the proposal was in a discussion document and was not a formal proposal. As I understand it, it concerned the textile industry, where there is much concern about the fact that the majority of textiles sold within the EU are now being produced outside the EU. Some within the textile industry thought that the proposal would be helpful. Does the Minister expect that, during the five months between now and the next European elections, there will be more stories from obscure discussion documents blown up into large stories about how dreadful the EU is?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the proposal—or discussion—arose from general comments by industry, MEPs and others. I do not think that it was restricted to the textile industry; it was a general proposal. No doubt other discussion documents will be discussed in similar terms in this House.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, too often, discussion documents become proposals, then they become directives, and then they are agreed by qualified majority vote? In this instance, would it have to be decided by qualified majority vote? Under those circumstances, would the Government not be able to do anything about it?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in EU processes, discussions tend to lead to proposals that are then voted on. In this case, there seems very little enthusiasm to continue with that process after the initial stage.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Judd set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Pendry to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [HL]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clause 1,
	Schedule 1,
	Clauses 2 to 4,
	Schedule 2,
	Clauses 5 to 10,
	Schedule 3,
	Clause 11,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 12 to 13,
	Schedule 5,
	Clause 14,
	Schedule 6,
	Clauses 15 to 28.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Commons message of 19th January be now considered, and that a committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December 2003 (Cm 6058);
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:
	L. Addington,
	L. Carter,
	L. Rix,
	L. Swinfen,
	L. Tebbit,
	B. Wilkins;
	That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
	That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and
	That the committee do report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

House Committee: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: rose to move, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, Freedom of Information: Members' Expenses, be agreed to (HL Paper 176, Session 2002–03).

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a year ago the House agreed that information relating to Members' expenses should be published from this autumn. This report follows up that decision by setting out details of what information is to be published and how it is to be published.
	Perhaps it would be helpful if I began by setting out what the House has already agreed: the information to be disclosed should be published annually; it should be broken down by the main categories of expenses available—travelling expenses, day subsistence, night subsistence, office costs and the pre-paid envelope scheme; and it should include an indication of the location of each Member's main residence. The House has also agreed that the information initially to be disclosed should include that relating to the three financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. The House of Commons has come to a similar decision. This House has also decided to publish information about the costs of Select Committee travel, parliamentary delegations to international parliamentary assemblies and financial assistance to opposition parties.
	We must now decide on the detailed points involved. The report sets out our recommendations, and we have set out in the appendices the form in which information will be published if our recommendations are agreed. I stress that, in discussing the details of how that should be done, the committee was particularly keen to keep in step with the House of Commons, and where the two Houses have the same or analogous allowances, we propose to publish information in the same way.
	I will not go through all our detailed recommendations, but the main ones are: claims for the same type of expense—in practice, travel expenses and office costs—should be aggregated; information about claims by spouses or on account of disability should not be published; and information should be published about former Members.
	Once the House has agreed to the form of the information to be published, the Accountant's Office will begin to send out to each Member details relating to 2001–02 and 2002–03. That will be done on a rolling basis to iron out any administrative difficulties. Then, once the claims for this financial year are received and paid, details will be sent to noble Lords of those figures, too. The purpose of that is to enable noble Lords to see the information relating to themselves before it is published and to verify that it is correct.
	As noble Lords will be aware, claims should be submitted within three months, so the latest claims for this financial year should be received by 30 June 2004. The committee also decided that information about the nature and costs of Select Committee visits should be published each financial year; that we should join with the Commons in their system of publishing the costs of parliamentary delegations; and that the annual sums paid to opposition parties under the Cranborne money scheme should be published by the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, Freedom of Information: Members' Expenses, be agreed to (HL Paper 176, Session 2002–03).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Following is the report referred to:
	FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MEMBERS' EXPENSES
	The House agreed on 14 January to the recommendation of the House Committee that information relating to Members' Expenses claims should be published, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with effect from the autumn of 2004 1 . The committee at the same time undertook to return to the House following its detailed consideration of the categories of expenses to be disclosed and the form in which the information should be published. This report fulfils that undertaking.
	Background
	The House has agreed that the information to be disclosed:
	—should be published annually;
	—should be broken down by the main categories of expenses available: travelling expenses, day subsistence, night subsistence, office costs, and the pre-paid envelope scheme;
	—should include an indication of the location of each Member's main residence.
	The House also agreed that the information initially to be disclosed should include that relating to the three financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. The House of Commons has come to a similar decision.
	In addition, the House agreed that information should be published about the expenses incurred by Members travelling on Select Committee business (these expenses being met by the House administration rather than being claimed by Members under the Members' Reimbursement Allowance Scheme) or as part of an official parliamentary delegation (the expenses of which are met initially by the House of Commons' Overseas Office). It also agreed that details held by the House of claims for Financial Assistance for Opposition Parties ("Cranborne money") should be published.
	There are two separate classes of information involved. The first is the claims for expenses of individual Members. The second is the publication of information about the costs of committees, delegations and opposition parties. They are dealt with separately here.
	Members' expenses
	The committee makes the following detailed recommendations about the information to be published:
	a. Following the Lord Chairman's undertaking made in the House on 14 January, there should be an opportunity for Members to give an indication of the location of their main residence if they so wish. The indication should be expressed by reference to county or equivalent region.
	b. The number of days each Member attended the House or a committee of the House should be published along with the data on expenses claims.
	c. All claims for the Office Costs allowance should be aggregated and a single figure published of the total sums claimed under this head.
	1 See First Report for 2002-03 of the House Committee (HL Paper 19), HL Deb, 14 January 2003, cols 136-141.
	d. Information about reimbursement of Members' travel costs should be given on a single aggregated basis encompassing all the three schemes: travel from the principal place of residence to Westminster; UK travel on parliamentary business; and EU travel on parliamentary business.
	e. Information about claims for travelling expenses by spouses of Members or Office Holders should not be published.
	f. Information about additional expenses incurred by disabled Members in attending the House and reimbursed on account of their disability should not be published.
	g. A simple indication should be given whether or not a Member is provided by the House with IT equipment on loan. This should be accompanied by a general description of the support available.
	h. The information to be published should include that relating to Members of the House who have died, retired or otherwise left the House during the year in question.
	A table indicating the form in which the information would be published if the committee's recommendations are adopted is in Appendix 1 to this report.
	Other Expenses
	Committee visits and delegation expenses
	The House of Commons has for some time published separate sessional breakdowns of the costs of committees, including costs relating to committee visits. Details of such costs have been collated in the Lords with effect from 1 April 2003, and we recommend that the total costs of each committee visit, together with details of its duration, purpose, and the numbers of Members and staff attending, should henceforth be published annually in respect of each financial year.
	No details have previously been published of the costs of parliamentary delegations to international Parliamentary assemblies. The relevant delegations are those to the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The House of Commons has now begun to publish the total expenditure incurred by each delegation, at six-monthly intervals, and has offered to include Lords Members of such delegations within that publication. The committee recommends the adoption of this arrangement.
	Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties ("Cranborne Money")
	The total sums available from the House to the Opposition parties and to the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers in carrying out their parliamentary duties are published in the Annual Report. The committee recommends that the House should publish for each party the aggregated figure of claims actually paid (see Appendix 2).
	Information about the data to be published
	Early in 2004 the Accountant's Office will begin to send to Members information relating to their own claims over the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. Members will have the opportunity to correct any errors in the data.
	Information relating to the current year will be sent to Members as soon as practicable after the year end. As Members have three months in which to submit claims, the deadline for submitting 2003–04 claims will be 30 June 2004. Given the tight timescale to ensure publication of the figures in the autumn Members will be given a maximum of one month in which to correct any errors, from the date on which the data were sent to them by the Accountant's Office.
	APPENDIX 1
	Members' Expenses
	ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM
	A. Members of the House of Lords, except those in receipt of a salary as a Minister, Office Holder or Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, are entitled to recover travel, subsistence and office costs incurred in connection with their parliamentary duties.
	B. Ministers and Office Holders are able to recover Secretarial Expenses incurred in respect of their Parliamentary duties. In addition, the Chairman of Committees, the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Chief Whip are paid personal travelling expenses from home to the House of Lords.
	C. Lords of Appeal in ordinary are eligible for reimbursement of travelling expenses alone.
	ATTENDANCE
	Expenses payable to Members within category A above are linked to attendance at:
	—sittings of the House (excluding attendance at the State Opening of Parliament and sittings for judicial business);
	—meetings of committees and sub-committees of the House (except judicial business);
	—meetings as a member of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST);
	—meetings as a member of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL).
	Costs incurred in respect of an attendance at any other meeting, whether held at Westminster or not, cannot be recovered unless the Member attends a meeting as defined above on the same day.
	SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BODY (SSRB)
	Facilities for free travel to enable Lords to attend the House for the purpose of their parliamentary duties were introduced in 1946. Lords were first able to claim limited reimbursement of other expenses in 1957. The current structure was broadly put in place following the recommendations of the then Top Salaries Review Body in 1979. Since 1994, allowances have been annually uprated by reference to the Retail Prices Index. The last report by the SSRB was in 2001 (Report No 48); its recommendations were accepted with effect from 20 June 2001. Subsistence and office costs allowances are up-rated with effect from 1 August each year, the travel allowances with effect from 1 April.
	Members' Expenses Claims
	
		
			 LORD Location of main residence (county or equivalent) No of days attended Overnight Subsistence £ Day Subsistence £ Office Costs £ Travel Costs £ Free Postage Costs £ Minister's and Office holder's Secretarial Expenses £ IT equipment (YES/NO) 
			 Lord A Edinburgh  
			 Lord B Hertfordshire  
			 Lord C London  
			 Lord D Co Antrim  
		
	
	Expenses of Members of the House of Lords 2001–04: explanatory notes
	
		
			 Description Maximum amount payable 
			 Main Residence  
			 This column shows the location of each Members' main residence, by county or equivalent region. Entries in this column are voluntary.  
		
	
	Expenses of Members of the House of Lords 2001–04: explanatory notes
	
		
			 Description Maximum amount payable 
			 Overnight Subsistence For each day of attendance: 
			 Members who do not live within reasonable daily travelling distance of Westminster, and incur the expense of overnight accommodation in London while away from their only or main residence for the purpose of attending sittings of the House may claim for such expenses. A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the house may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining such a residence. August 2000–19 June 2001 20 June 2001–July 2001 August 2001–July 2002 August 2002–July 2003 August 2003–July 2004 £84.00 per day £120.00 £122.00 £124.00 £128.00 
			 Day Subsistence For each day of attendance: 
			 Members may claim day subsistence and incidental travel costs not separately recoverable. This allowance is intended to cover such items as the cost of meals and incidental travel costs. August 2000–19 June 2001 20 June 2001–July 2001 August 2001–July 2002 August 2002–July 2003 August 2003–July 2004 £37.00 per day £60.00 £61.00 £62.00 £64.00 
			 Office Costs For each day of attendance: 
			 Members may recover certain office costs including the cost of secretarial help, research assistance and here appropriate the cost of providing necessary equipment, together with the cost of certain additional expenses (eg domestic costs, purchase of books, periodicals, and professional subscription charges that arise out of parliamentary duties). August 2000–19 June 2001 20 June 2001–July 2001 August 2001–July 2002 August 2002–July 2003 August 2003–July 2004 £36.00 per day £50.00 £51.00 £52.00 £53.50 
			  In addition, office costs incurred on days when the House is not sitting or a Member does not attend may be claimed up to an additional 40 days per year. 
			 Description Maximum amount payable 
			 Travelling Expenses  
			 Travel to Westminster  
			 Members may recover, subject to certain rules, the costs of fares incurred in travelling between their principal residence and Westminster for the purposes of attending a sitting of the House, or (subject to the limits set out below) the costs of travel by private car or bicycle.  
			 UK Travel  
			 In addition to the normal travel arrangements, the cost of journeys made on parliamentary business elsewhere within the United Kingdom may also be recovered.  
			 European Travel  
			 From 1 April 2003 Members are able to recover the costs of two return journeys per year, travelling on parliamentary duties, between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of a European Union state or a candidate country.  
			 Motor Mileage Allowance 2001–02: Up to 20,000  miles per year at 53.7p per  mile and over 20,000 at  the rate of 24.8p per mile 2002–03: 54.4p or 25.1p 2003–04: 56.1p or 25.9p 
			 Bicycle Allowance 2001–02: 6.9p per mile 2002–03: 7p 2003–04: 7.2p 
			 Free Postage Costs  
			 Prepaid envelopes and postcards are available for use by Members for correspondence on House of Lords' business. The costs shown include the postage and envelope costs.  
			 Ministers' Secretarial Expenses  
			 Ministers and other paid Office Holders in the House of Lords are able to recover expenses for secretarial assistance certified as incurred by them in the performance of their Parliamentary duties. August 2000–July 2001 August 2001–July 2002 August 2002–July 2003 August 2003–July 2004 £4,460 per year £4,531 £4,599 £4,742 
			 IT Equipment  
			 Members are entitled to the loan of up to two PCs (one of which must be a laptop) and printers for use on Parliamentary business. House of Lords policy is for PCs to be replaced every three years. From November 2003 the costs of a broadband installation and line rental may also be paid by the House. 
		
	
	APPENDIX 2 Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties A scheme for providing financial assistance to the Opposition and second largest opposition party in the House of Lords to assist them in carrying out their Parliamentary business was introduced in October 1996. This was extended to cover the Convenor of Cross Bench Peers in October 1999. Under the scheme, the parties and Convenor are responsible for ensuring that the expenses claimed are incurred exclusively in relation to their Parliamentary business. At the end of each financial year they provide a certificate from an independent professional auditor to confirm this. The maximum amounts payable are uprated annually in line with the retail prices index.
	
		
			  Total Payments made £ 
			 Official Opposition  
			 Liberal Democrat  
			 Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers

Development Aid

Lord Judd: rose to call attention to the role of development aid in tackling world poverty and the part played by the United Kingdom's aid programme; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and VSO, and as a trustee, past and present, of NGOs concerned with overseas development and international security matters. My thanks go to the Overseas Development Institute and Saferworld, which, together with Oxfam, have been particularly helpful in the preparation of my thoughts for this debate.
	It is significant that my noble friend the Leader of the House will herself reply to the debate. That encouragingly underlines the priority given to overseas development by the Government. The war on poverty has not yet been won. The millennium development goal agreed at the United Nations in 2000 is to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Although the latest estimate by the World Bank is that the target will be met, other agencies are more dubious, not least because of the continuing adverse effect of debt on some of the poorest countries, despite the imaginative and outspoken lead given by our own Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to mobilise the international will and effort to put that right.
	The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in his 2003 progress report to the UN, reminded us that still 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day; 800 million are undernourished; 153 million children under five are underweight; and in sub-Saharan Africa and western Asia the proportion of people living in poverty has increased since 1990. Nearly 11 million children under five die every year, most of them from easily preventable diseases or treatable causes. In sub-Saharan Africa there was no significant progress on child mortality between 1990 and 2001, and there is little indication anywhere in the developing world of sufficient progress to meet the MDG on improved maternal health. All that is alongside the devastation of AIDS.
	I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us today what are now the Government's forecasts on each of the sectoral MDG targets and what can be done to ensure that they are fulfilled. It would also be helpful to hear her observations on the debt burden of the poorest countries in this context.
	Greatly to the Government's credit, aid expenditure has grown by 93 per cent in real terms since 1997. It is expected to reach 0.4 per cent of gross national income by 2006 as compared with its lowest-ever level of 0.24 per cent of gross national product at the end of the 1990s. Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that, when the government in which I served went out of office in 1979, aid stood at 0.51 per cent of gross national product. As long ago as 1970, following the much respected Pearson Commission report, the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for aid was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and the United Kingdom signed up to that. In 1979, we were making significant progress towards the target, but the successor government went into reverse.
	In 2002, Norway had reached 0.89 per cent of gross national income, and is committed to reach 1 per cent by 2005; Sweden stood at 0.83 per cent, the Netherlands at 0.81 per cent and Luxembourg at 0.77 per cent. Ireland is now evidently committed to reach 0.7 per cent by 2007, and Belgium has made a legal commitment to reach 0.7 per cent by 2010.
	It would be immensely encouraging if my noble friend could tell the House today when we expect to reach our 0.7 per cent target. Such a commitment, when we next take on the presidency of the European Union in 2005, would greatly enhance the United Kingdom's influence with other members of the Union in this sphere of policy, and would similarly strengthen our position when we host the G8 in the same year. It would also be a powerful lever to mobilise international support behind the Chancellor's proposed international finance facility.
	Of course it is not quantity alone that matters; here the evidence is positive. With the end of all the East/West politicking of the Cold War, aid is becoming more effective, and, in many ways, the British Government lead on that. United Kingdom aid is well targeted on low-income countries and is more poverty-focused than that of most other donors. This poverty focus has been given legislative endorsement by the International Development Act.
	The present Government have played a leading role in untying aid. In 2002 the UK was one of only two government donors whose aid was 100 per cent untied. The United Kingdom is notable among donor governments in having a single department of Cabinet-level status wholly focused on international development. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that that will remain the position.
	The Department for International Development has a proactive, cross-Whitehall remit on policy affecting international co-operation and development and I hope that this will develop. It is indispensable. If the battle is to be won it will inevitably involve financial policy, trade policy, debt policy, environment policy, transport policy, defence policy, foreign policy, immigration policy and much else besides aid itself.
	Internationally, the United Kingdom has played a lead role in DAC efforts to increase donor co-ordination and thereby reduce the burden on aid recipients. I believe that in everybody's estimate, DfID has high quality, deeply committed staff who have enjoyed under successive Ministers successful, strong, determined and visionary leadership. The positive, principled personal engagement of the Chancellor on Third World issues has made for a powerful and invaluable alliance between DfID and the Treasury.
	In the end, the battle to contain global terrorism will be won in hearts and minds. That is why Guantanamo Bay and comparable arrangements elsewhere are not only profoundly wrong but disturbingly counter-productive. We must always be careful about simplistic assumptions concerning a link between poverty or deprivation and terrorism. The overwhelming majority of poor people in the world would never contemplate an act of terrorism. In my own direct experience I have been repeatedly humbled by the value systems of the poor. They would be horrified if they witnessed an act of terrorism in their neighbourhood. But in the midst of their struggle to survive and to find the next meal for their families, that does not mean that every morning when they awake their priority is the hunting down of extremists capable of terrorist action. Sometimes, in their pain and struggle, they may be tempted to wonder whether, however unforgivable terrorist action may be, the extremists are not perhaps on their side. It is in this constituency of ambivalence that the cynical and manipulative extremists thrive. It is hard to find in history evidence of extremist activities initiated by the poor. They are usually masterminded by the relatively well endowed playing on the disadvantage of the oppressed.
	Social and economic progress are not therefore only morally right—and that must always be the driving motivation—they are essential to reduce the number of desperate people open to exploitation. If we want to strive for a viable, peaceful world, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of power, justice and human rights are not just value options, they are inescapably vital. We have effectively to address exclusion and the concentration of power. Order cannot be imposed: that is a self-deception destined to disaster. Order has to be built; it has to be an order in which increasingly everybody has a stake.
	Aid and development must never be about buying people for our system. It must be about building a system which belongs to everybody. That is how the rejectionist extremists—and they are there—will be marginalised. In trade policy we have to be certain that the agendas at the World Trade Organisation or wherever, are agendas which belong to the poor as much as to the rich and that they are not at best patronising agendas to which the poor, in what we arrogantly tell them is their own best interests, are being asked to respond.
	In environment policy it is a matter of ensuring that we face up to how the poor will once more suffer the worst penalties for the self-indulgence of the rich. Global warming is set to kill very many more people prematurely than terrorism ever will and to displace countless others. In population policy, however essential, it is necessary to be honest about patterns of consumption as much as concerned with patterns of population growth.
	As regards migration, it is imperative to recognise the gigantic flaw in the global market by which we set so much store, when we have the free movement of capital and investment, the free movement of goods, but no free movement of people. That is not to argue that the free movement of people is a practical possibility, but it is to accept that its absence presents policy challenges in terms of global, economic and social justice which the flawed market cannot meet.
	From Afghanistan we hear calls for more resources for security. These must be answered. But if the obstacles to security are not to be multiplied we have to redouble our efforts and expenditure for economic and social progress, otherwise we shall be like a bad doctor frantically prescribing more and more palliatives to treat the symptoms while failing to come to grips with the disease. If new and hopeful political arrangements are to work, the widest cross-section of people throughout Afghanistan must experience better health facilities, better schools for their children, better water, reliable food supplies and improved housing and transport. To welcome political developments while failing sufficiently to underwrite them with our commitment to development, could quickly prove cynically hollow in effect.
	A charge of cynicism could apply in another sphere as well. We speak of justice and the rule of law. These cost a lot of money, for facilities, training and personnel. Whenever we advocate the rule of law we must ensure the wherewithal, and this applies to prisons as well if there is to be any chance of rehabilitation.
	The priorities for Iraq are urgently similar. I was frankly disturbed by an Answer to a recent Written Parliamentary Question. The Treasury informed me on 18 December that,
	"The Ministry of Defence has drawn down £1 billion in last year's spring Supplementary Estimate from the £3 billion set aside to cover the cost of operations in Iraq. The Chancellor in his pre-Budget Report Statement confirmed that £2 billion has been carried forward into the Special Reserve for 2003–04 and in addition prudently set aside a further £800 million over two years; £500 million in 2003–04 and £300 million in 2004–05 for our international commitments in Iraq and the war against terrorism".
	The Answer continued,
	"At the Madrid Donors Conference in October the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, announced the Government's pledge of £544 million to support the reconstruction of Iraq over the three years from 2003. Of this, £296 million will be for the next two financial years, including bilateral funds and the UK's share of proposed EU contributions to Iraq". —[Official Report, 18/12/03; col. WA 190.]
	There is more than £3 billion for military operations but only £544 million for reconstruction. Do we or do we not want to win the peace as well as the war? Furthermore, there is the worrying evidence that funds are already being withdrawn from important humanitarian development projects elsewhere to finance relief and development in Iraq.
	Many of us remain deeply concerned about the degree to which the sense of international community and the commitment to the international rule of law were damaged by the way in which war was waged in Iraq. There has been less discussion about the problems faced by the UN in the aid field where funds have stagnated and are becoming increasingly hobbled by special earmarking. In effect, donors who are not happy with the governance of programmes of individual agencies are avoiding the required structural reforms and cherry-picking the projects and programmes they like. The FAO is one such example. This is obviously wrong. We need the UN more than ever to set standards, build consensus, co-ordinate policy and deliver programmes. Kofi Annan has set aside the so-called "quiet revolution", setting up instead the new high level panel on threats, challenges and change. It would be extremely interesting to hear the observations of my noble friend this evening on how the Government are responding to all this and what their priorities are.
	There are of course already a number of relevant initiatives. These include the World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalisation and the Helsinki Process. Can my noble friend tell us more about the Government's part in these and similar initiatives? Can she at the same time tell us where the Government stand on new proposals for a United Nations-sponsored international treaty on the arms trade, a trade which constantly thwarts development and hampers the fulfilment of NBG goals?
	In January last year, the Prime Minister said:
	"there can be no new consensus, no new order, no stability, without tackling the appalling poverty that afflicts nearly a half of the world's population. Action to deal with this—possible with the right vision and imagination—is the best investment in its own future the developed world could make".
	I, for one, wish the Government well in their commitment. I urge them to accelerate and maximise the momentum that they have generated. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I know that I speak for all on the Benches opposite in congratulating him on initiating this debate and for his very powerful speech. I calculate that this is now the 43rd year during which the noble Lord has been speaking with great energy, passion and authority on the subject of international development. I hope that he will continue to do so for many years to come.
	I cannot hope to match the noble Lord's experience or knowledge, but I agree with what he said about the concern that the targets for alleviating world poverty by 2015 by a measurable degree may not be met. The noble Lord was right to raise that concern. Therefore, all noble Lords should be reinvigorating not only in challenging the Government but also in supporting the Government in helping us to meet those targets. This is not a matter of partisan politics. The Conservative Party as a whole—certainly the Conservatives who take an interest in the subject—congratulate the Government on what has happened over the past six or seven years. With increased prosperity in this nation, we have been able to increase the proportion of Government expenditure and GDP spend on aid. The initiatives on debt relief, which I have seen at first hand in a number of countries, have brought real and tangible benefits. This is not a matter of beating up the Government; it is a matter of congratulating the Government on sensible moves in the past few years.
	I shall speak briefly about two countries in sub-Saharan Africa where I have practical experience. I hope that my comments will complement the philosophical approach taken, in some respects, by the noble Lord. I speak from an unpaid—disinterested in an economic sense—perspective about both countries. But I deeply care about both Uganda and Sierra Leone, which are good examples of the effectiveness of aid and its shortcomings. Sadly, both countries have experienced very severe civil wars during the past two decades, causing great disruption to their economies and great poverty. Measured by United Nations criteria, Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, with the lowest gross national product per head in Africa. To see the poverty, particularly the rural poverty, in Uganda, close to the war zones in, currently, the north-east of the country but in previous years in the north-west, and in Freetown in Sierra Leone, causes anyone who has been to those two countries great distress and a determination to do something about it.
	I believe that there are three conditions for effective international aid. The first condition is security; that is, the nation itself must be secure and free from war, conflict, corruption and bad government. The second condition is that the aid that is provided must be focused. I pay tribute to the practice of the British Government's aid programme over the past 20 years, and, in particular, over the past five years. The third condition is that we must have a fair world economic system involving tariffs as well as direct investment and trade, which is compatible with and supplementary to our aid programme.
	I turn first to security. Perhaps I may take Sierra Leone as a good example where there are still 13,500 soldiers drawn from mainly Nigeria, Kenya and Bangladesh, but with a significant contribution by the British Armed Forces. I say to the Minister that, from first-hand experience, I very much hope that the United Nations, on the encouragement of the British Government, will not take a precipitous view of the withdrawal of all those troops before the end of this year. If that should happen, the army and police in Sierra Leone will not be sufficiently trained—nor will they have sufficient numbers—to provide internal security.
	It is important to have governments who are not corrupt. The British Government should provide the examples from our democracy as to how that should be observed and properly policed. I think that your Lordships will wish to pay credit to President Museveni in Uganda and to President Kabbah in Sierra Leone for setting an excellent example. But it is more important that there is a lack of corruption and distrust throughout society. Part of the problem is the unfair wages that are too low and which are paid, certainly, in local government and in certain industries. In the mining industry in Sierra Leone, poverty wages undoubtedly were a contribution to the export of illegal diamonds to Liberia and thence on to unsuitable—perhaps even terrorist—hands. It will be very difficult in some of these poor countries, but an attempt to raise the wage level should make a real contribution to eliminating corruption and improving good governance.
	Secondly, I turn to the focus of aid. The United Kingdom has a good record. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will know, with more experience than I have, where the examples lie; but it must be said that as regards the international agencies, and even the charities, the aid programme is unfocused. It is bureaucratic. A smaller proportion of the aid than one would wish reaches the poor and helps to develop the economies and societies of these countries. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who mentioned a number of examples where focus should continue to be made. The British Government should be encouraging our colleagues in the European Union—let alone international agencies—to encourage an emphasis on health.
	The standard of some hospitals in some of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa is an absolute disgrace because people treat life so cheaply, when they should not. Some simple, basic investment in some of those hospitals is essential. There need to be schools for basic literacy. There should be employment for the young men and women who have been involved in conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, many of whom are now without jobs because either they are physically disabled or there are no jobs available. There should be roads to transport agricultural produce to the ports or airports, which many African countries have relied on in the past for exports. Finally, of course, there should be electricity.
	I strongly believe that fair world economic trade is absolutely essential. The sooner that all the parties in this country can unite in calling for a dramatic end to the scandal of the common agricultural policy and the agricultural subsidies the better. I have seen first-hand examples, and the Vice-President of Sierra Leone, who was in the British Parliament last week, underlined the fact that without the unfair subsidies provided by European funds, agricultural output—exports, such as rice, tea, coffee, fruit and vegetables—would increase tenfold if there could be fair trade.
	Economic investment is appropriate in certain areas; that is, investment by the United Kingdom and Europe in agriculture, mining and civil engineering. The nations themselves must present sensible and viable suggestions where that can be directly linked to a reduction in poverty because there is an increase in prosperity and jobs. Nations should co-operate, particularly in Africa, more on a regional basis. The markets can be bigger and the economic prospects for European companies can be more attractive.
	I conclude by emphasising that good business investment and trade—not all businesses take a jaundiced and unfair view of investment in developing countries—should march, and can march, hand in hand with good development aid. The practices of both complement each other, which I am sure that your Lordships would want.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating the debate. He spoke to the House with his usual passion and conviction but, above all, with knowledge of the subject. I have a modest declaration of interest to make as a fellow patron of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, of which I was the first chairman.
	I wish to concentrate on the importance of educational co-operation as a vital element in our total aid strategy, particularly within the Commonwealth. The arrival of two new Ministers, Hilary Benn for development aid and Charles Clarke for education, provides an opportunity for a fresh appraisal of the pattern of priorities. I warmly welcome Charles Clarke's statement at the recent meeting of Commonwealth education ministers in Edinburgh that education must be at the very heart of the Commonwealth.
	That conference went on to agree an action plan for Commonwealth education, which was put before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nigeria. After the conference, I was grateful for the assurances from the Leader of the House to your Lordships' House that, despite the many divisive political preoccupations in the Commonwealth, the Government took the Commonwealth dimension in education seriously.
	I hope that the Government will now take a lead in maintaining the momentum of those initiatives from the education Ministers and from CHOGM. It is important that DfID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Education and Skills work closely together in their educational aid strategy. In the past, the Department for Education and Science was too insular and isolationist about the international dimension of education and DfID, for all its worthy work, has been too narrow and ideologically dogmatic in relation to the degree of priority given to primary education and poverty.
	The role of universal primary education is, of course, absolutely fundamental, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, in winning the battle against poverty. If that battle is to be won, educational aid is needed on many fronts, apart from the primary schools of the poorest in the world. Action from technical education through to post-graduate projects, such as the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, is needed.
	To make Britain's aid strategy fully effective we need the three key Ministers in the Government to back a common vision of the role of education in our overseas aid policy. That vision must recognise that ending poverty is not an end in itself, but a means to a more decent society with civilised values. It is here that the educational element in aid policies not only contributes to the ending of poverty, but also contributes to the making of a decent and better society. Of course, for their policies, DfID, the DES and the FCO have to compete for scarce resources within educational aid, whether for poverty and primary education, for Commonwealth fellowships, or for the FCO's Chevening Scholarships, but the Government have a special responsibility to ensure a more coherent educational balance between those various claims.
	For historical reasons the Government have a special responsibility to lead the Commonwealth in that area. The FCO's Chevening Scholarships hang on year by year. I would be grateful for any information that the Minister can give the House about their likely future. I understand that the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan has been guaranteed until 2006. I welcome that, but would be glad to have absolute confirmation to that effect. The CSFP, which was, in some ways, the origins of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth that I mentioned, and which has lasted for nearly 50 years, is a success story. I believe that within the Government a directory has been drawn up of the 20,000 holders of the fellowships and scholarships over the years. It makes an impressive list of achievements.
	An active profile has been made of 5,000 of the scholarship and fellowship holders and they have made a positive contribution to poverty reduction and to cultural ties. That is something for which Her Majesty's Government and governments of all parties can accept a great deal of credit. The United Kingdom alone has made £12 million available, which exceeds the entire budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat. That is a very striking figure.
	On the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat, we welcome the re-election of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. We wish him well in his work during his new term of office. While the education section in the secretariat seems fairly secure for the time being—a welcome change from the clouds overhanging it a year or so ago—it is badly under-resourced. Currently in that section there are only four secretariat finance posts, one of which has been deliberately left unfilled for the moment to save money. The staff have only three professionals working on the main budget, which surely is grossly inadequate to carry out all the mandates from Edinburgh and CHOGM; it contrasts ill with the situation of 10 years ago when there were as many as nine professional posts in education. That is an area where, because of Britain's special position within the Commonwealth, the Government can give a lead.
	In world affairs the Commonwealth remains a very remarkable organisation that bridges the gaps between all the various economic groups in the international community from the richest to the poorest. As a former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I am bound to say that, as the years have gone by, the Commonwealth has not been at its most successful in dealing with historical legacies of empire and colonialism. The Commonwealth is at its best when it uses its common language—a tremendous asset in terms of a more peaceful and decent world—in other fields of co-operation and particularly in the area of education.
	I hope that the Government will be able to take a lead in building on the education action programme of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and at the follow-up conference in Nigeria. I also hope that they will be able to report positive progress when the education Ministers meet next in Malaysia and when CHOGM meets next in Malta.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend most warmly on the vigour and passion with which he introduced the debate. I declare an interest as the honorary chair of the council of the Overseas Development Institute, on which council my noble friend served with great distinction for many years. I am very grateful to him for raising issues in the way that he has. He is right that in recent years the United Kingdom has had a very good record in international development. We have made good progress both financially and institutionally at home and on the ground in developing countries.
	My special interest as chairman of the Overseas Development Institute, and indeed, through my work in HIV/AIDS, has been recently in southern Africa, and I shall be visiting there again next week. It is clear that, however strong our record has been in the past, we need to do even more with even greater vigour. After all, in sub-Saharan Africa half the population still lives on less than one US dollar a day, and only half of all primary school children attend a school, even when it is there. Even in South Africa, which is formally and technically described as a middle-income country, 3 million people live on less than one US dollar, and 10 million people—23 per cent of the population, or almost a quarter—live on two US dollars a day.
	We now know a great deal about the huge health care, economic and other impacts on those countries of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, although unfortunately we know too little about how to deal with them. We are beginning to understand the long-term social, psychological and community problems that are being thrown up by the enormous impact of HIV/AIDS. I shall illustrate that, to make it possible to understand in human terms.
	A small research project in which the Overseas Development Institute has been involved in rural KwaZulu-Natal shows that in one village 66 per cent had experienced more than one family member death from HIV/AIDS in the past three years. Tragically, of the 178 children who were included in the village survey, more than 100 played a role as the primary care giver in families in which the adults were already dead.
	The consequences of that kind of social and community disaster will clearly resonate for many generations, however generous and well directed the aid programmes of this country and others may be. That kind of stark prediction must not deter us from being ambitious today. That is why I congratulate the Government on their determination. They must go ahead with raising expectations with our allies and friends in other countries on what strong leadership, the right vision and the necessary resources can achieve. We must use our hard-won influence with countries, especially the United States, to ensure that they understand our vision and our expectations of what we should all do.
	As my noble friend Lord Judd has already said, next year the United Kingdom will hold both the presidency of the European Union and the chair of the G8, which are both positions from which we can exert our considerable influence. I am sure that the Government are considering how to use those opportunities, and I want to make two suggestions.
	First, we need to infuse the donor commitment to Africa with a more concrete vision of how poverty is to be dealt with. We see our own political commitment from the evident leadership of the Prime Minster, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, of course, my noble friend Lady Amos. We must congratulate her on her roles in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and on her short tenure as Secretary of State in the Department for International Development. Her leadership in this area has been enormous, and it is splendid that we can continue to hear her speaking from the Front Bench on these issues, even though she is now Leader of the House.
	I raise a note of caution for my noble friend and other colleagues in the Government, which, again, is one to which my noble friend Lord Judd referred. We must be careful not to allow our current and understandable concern with security to become so dominant that other development issues take second place. I do not think either that we must consider giving poverty reduction a very high profile and high priority only when we think it may help to reduce international security risks.
	It would be helpful to have an assurance from my noble friend that development issues will remain high on the agenda that will be established and created in the international fora in the next 18 months. It is important that worthwhile aid budgets to countries such as South Africa, which are regarded technically as middle-income countries, are not threatened by the huge additional expenditure that the Government are undertaking in security and defence.
	It is true that after the Monterrey meeting on financing for development in 2001, and the Canadian summit of the G8 in the same year, the long-term decline in global world aid has begun to be reversed. DfID has pledged £1 billion for Africa by 2006, and other donors have been similarly forthcoming. The Bush Administration's Millennium Challenge Account is currently underfunded, but in my view the existence of the account is an example of a new commitment from what some of us might consider a surprising quarter. US aid to Africa as a whole is expected to double in 2004, and sub-Saharan Africa already receives some 20 US dollars per capita in aid. None the less, we must remember the context of that against the extremely low incomes of that region. There is absorbable capacity for more aid and, collectively, we should be striving to provide it. My noble friend Lord Judd was right to raise the question of whether there will be a new initiative on debt relief.
	We are all aware that the issues of development go well beyond financial assistance. The problem, and our concern about how to address it, is how to achieve economic growth in Africa, since growth—growth with equity and growth with human development—is necessary to achieve sustainable development for the African population.
	Again, the UK Government have a good record. We have rightly highlighted good governance, and have embraced those countries that are committed to democracy and the rule of law. Our important support in these areas to NePAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—is admirable. Again, the leadership of my noble friend Lady Amos, has been particularly good. The United Kingdom has emphasised health and education as underpinning development, in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested was important. We have strongly supported those governments committed to the universal access goals of the Millennium Declaration.
	We have also encouraged participatory processes and the preparation of poverty reduction strategy papers—the main vehicle for debt relief and the framework for disbursing additional funds in the poorest countries. All of those policies that the United Kingdom has developed support appropriate development, and the Government should be congratulated on pursuing them. However, we still need to look clearly, carefully and with great energy at the continuing difficulties in the productive industries, such as agriculture. Africa still finds many barriers to trade, which also exist in industrial areas.
	My second concern is about European development co-operation, which is another topic on which the Overseas Development Institute is engaged, and on which this House is currently conducting an inquiry in Sub-Committee C of the European Select Committee. If we look to 2005, which will be during our presidency of the European Union, a decision must be made as to the shape of the new Commission. I hope that the Government will exert pressure to influence, and ensure, that one senior commissioner is responsible for development policy that is independent and separate from foreign policy within the EU. The current balance of responsibilities between the Commissioner for Development and Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Affairs represents a compromise that does not necessarily work.
	The other key outstanding issue in the run-up to and during the UK presidency will be the settlement of the financial perspective, which will fix European budget spending from 2007 to 2013. I hope that we can work to ensure that the European Development Fund provides that the funds destined for the poorest countries are protected, and that we do not simply, through the European Union, concentrate entirely on those countries where we have primarily strategic interests. If we can use our influence internationally to achieve collaborative work—I echo the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in focusing on the Commonwealth activity in this field, and through our presidency and interests in the European Union—I am sure that the Government's very good record will continue.

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on introducing this subject. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who brought together the financial and non-financial aspects of aid, as well as her experience on HIV/AIDS in Africa and her tremendous commitment in doing something about it.
	The debate is about development aid, and in particular, its relationship with tackling world poverty. It comes at a time when globally—not only in the UK—we have seen a tremendous increase in aid. In the latter half of the 1990s there was an initiative to reduce or forgive debt in developing countries. Then, in 2002 there was the Monterrey meeting from which we had a commitment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, from the US and Europe to increase aid by some 16 billion US dollars a year by 2006. If aid amounting to roughly 50 billion dollars a year is moving from the rich to the poor countries, that represents an increase in the order of 30 per cent.
	In addition, we have had the proposal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one which I have publicly supported on a number of occasions from these Benches, to use the private international capital markets to raise funds and supercharge the process of giving aid in order to meet the 2015 millennium development goals.
	However, I should tell noble Lords that a great deal of scepticism is being expressed in the circles in which I move on exactly how aid reduces world poverty. That is because aid is simply money given by the UK Treasury to the treasuries of developing countries. Either that money can be consumed with little resultant increase in growth or it can be invested, with the potential of producing a high yield. In making the case for aid, the World Bank has stated that:
	"Over the last 40 or 50 years, aid has been highly effective, highly ineffective and somewhere in between".
	So it is not obvious that higher levels of aid are automatically effective.
	Let us look at the statistics for aid given to sub-Saharan Africa over the past 30 years. Aid as a percentage of the GDP of sub-Saharan countries has risen from around 5 per cent to more than 15 per cent. The rates of growth in those countries have reduced from 2 or 3 per cent annually to zero or even negative rates. Last month the respected economic think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, expressed its scepticism about this:
	"Ultimately aid fails miserably owing to its corrupting psychology and politics. It inculcates the belief that development comes from outside and not through sustained domestic effort. It focuses energies on distributing the spoils of politics rather than on productive wealth creation. It allows elites to extract funds through beggary or blackmail while perpetuating damaging policies at home. Aid delays rather than promotes much-needed policy reform".
	I fundamentally disagree with that and I want to use my time this afternoon to explain why I do so and why there is a sound basis for using aid to reduce poverty.
	The starting point is to acknowledge that the only way to reduce world poverty is through an increase in world economic growth. The dramatic examples of the past 10 to 15 years are China and India. For more than a decade China has achieved an economic growth rate of 8 per cent and has seen the percentage of its people living on a dollar or less per day falling from 33 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2000. India has achieved a less dramatic growth rate of just over 4 per cent, which has resulted in a noticeable reduction of poverty. If economic growth is the key to reducing poverty, how do we achieve it?
	I turn to the Treasury proposal for an international finance facility and the chapter headed, A New Approach to Aid, and reports from the World Bank. Both argue that growth in developing countries depends fundamentally on the policies that they follow: macro-economic stability, transparency in government, a sound investment climate, trade liberalisation and the local ownership of reform programmes. I offer one statistic to support those observations. The World Bank has looked at low, middle and high-income countries to see how many days it would take to start up a business. In the low-income countries the average is 70 days; in middle-income countries it is 50 days, while in Canada and New Zealand it is two days. Against the background of economic growth causing poverty reduction and growth arising from the policies adopted by developing countries, we can argue the case for aid.
	I believe that aid is particularly effective in two areas: first, in helping poor countries to build up capacity in public administration and in the private sector so that they can operate market economies, generate economic growth and attract foreign investment; and, secondly, when countries are moving in that direction, we should acknowledge that it will be decades before they have clean water, universal primary education, public health and a proper transport infrastructure. At this stage, laissez-faire is not enough. A strong case can be made for giving financial aid to those countries which have chosen reform because it will yield a high return.
	This is a very different case for aid from that made in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when aid was linked to market failure, protectionism, state planning and expanding public sector corporations. Along with other speakers, I strongly believe in the case for aid. The reason I do so is that if we can encourage developing countries to introduce reforms in the direction I have indicated, we shall see a high pay- off. As I have said, against that background laissez-faire is not enough.
	But we still have a trusteeship responsibility to taxpayers in our own countries. We must ask whether we can do more to ensure that aid is used effectively. I should like to suggest three things that we could do. First, where possible, development aid should be allocated on the basis of measurable outputs and not just on the money given. I realise that that may not be possible in certain areas such as capacity building, but we could do more to specify performance criteria such as the number of children vaccinated, reading and writing targets met in schools, miles of roads built, kilowatts of electricity generated and the ease with which new businesses can be created. That would build on the criteria already set out in the Treasury and DfID paper I mentioned earlier. Further, the International Financing Initiative has made the position clear by stating that recipient countries are expected to pursue anti-corruption policies, to improve transparency in public sector management and to lay out their poverty reduction strategies. However, I believe that we could go one step further.
	Secondly, in terms of the delivery mechanisms in recipient countries, the private sector and the institutions of civil society rather than simply government could and should be asked to do more.
	Thirdly, development aid needs to be the subject of greater external scrutiny. The effectiveness of funds given should be verified by independent external auditors and their reports published. Too often there is a lack of post-aid donation auditing and publication.
	In conclusion, the scale of global poverty outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in opening the debate remains a scandal. We cannot simply stand back and adopt a posture of laissez-faire. Reducing world poverty demands a substantial additional boost in development aid. For those countries which choose to reform, it will yield high returns. But we in the rich countries must also act responsibly. The challenge is this: do we have the political will to act, and to act now? I sincerely hope that we do.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Judd for initiating this debate and for having spoken with his usual authority based on a great deal of experience in this issue. I should also declare an interest in that I have served as a trustee of or on the committees of a number of development agencies.
	I find it deeply shocking that one and a half billion people in the world live on less than two dollars a day. Many of them are in Africa, although desperate poverty is also found on other continents. The disparity between the affluent West and the poverty in particular of sub-Saharan Africa presents a challenge to us all. It lays on us an enormous responsibility to act decisively and, as the noble Lord just observed, to show proper political will.
	Looking at it in the round, the UK has a good record. Not long ago the Prime Minister expressed a passionate commitment to tackling poverty in Africa, and in DfID we have an excellent department, one of the best among the richer countries of the world in dealing with these issues. We have taken the initiative by writing off the debts of the poorest countries of the world. We have also initiated schemes whereby our aid is not tied to trade. So, all in all, our record is good.
	As my noble friend Lady Jay said a moment ago, by 2005 we will have increased our bilateral aid to Africa to £1 billion per year. And yet we still have not reached our target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. I join my noble friend Lord Judd in asking my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government can give an indication of the year by which we will feel able to meet that target.
	Of course, it is not an issue just of aid in isolation. We must also achieve fairer trade. It is no good just giving aid to poor countries and helping them to improve their infrastructure for developing and selling more products if we then slam the door on our markets while subsidising our own producers. That does not make sense and it is not right. In the fullness of time, we must properly appreciate that trade and the opportunity to earn more money are essential if poor countries are to raise their living standards.
	We were all desperately disappointed at the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun. We had hoped that further talks and initiatives would be possible by December, but I fear that that has not been the case. It has been quoted on many occasions that the average EU cow receives more financial support than 1.5 billion people—perhaps even more—in the world today. We simply cannot go on accepting a system where we subsidise agriculture through the CAP. I know that British government policy is against the CAP for that reason, but the CAP continues to have that major flaw. We cannot go on supporting a system that penalises poor countries by denying them markets in the West and making it difficult for them to compete, unsubsidised, against subsidised western producers.
	It is not only subsidies through the CAP, but also market forces that work against poor countries. We will all have read at great length in the newspapers how coffee producers are receiving ever-smaller returns, while coffee prices in restaurants and coffee houses in the West continue to go up. That disparity is not to do so much with subsidy as with an imbalance of market forces. That also works to the detriment of the poor.
	I shall refer briefly to the EU aid programme. It has improved in recent years, but I would still like to see it as focused on tackling poverty as is the British aid programme. Too much of the EU aid programme is still disbursed on political issues rather than on poverty.
	It is important that any programme to eradicate poverty focuses on children. Every year, more than 10 million children under five die of preventable illnesses. That is 30,000 children per day. More than 500,000 women a year die in pregnancy and childbirth. Such deaths are 100 times more likely in sub-Saharan Africa than in high-income, OECD countries. That is a scandal.
	Children need more support and help. I was assisted in visiting Bangladesh by a leading development agency, Plan UK, to look at programmes to improve the health and education of children in Dhaka and in some poor villages. I was impressed by the effectiveness of a development agency programme aimed at involving children themselves in tackling their own situation. Initially, I was a little sceptical, but having seen the programme in action in the field, I was most impressed. Both in an urban slum in Dhaka and in villages, the programme was helping to improve the health and education of children and, through children, of the families themselves.
	I visited a village school where the children were particularly concerned. They called an emergency meeting because one of the children had been taken out of school to get married at the age of 14. The children were developing a programme to alert families in the area that that was not a good idea. I also saw an enterprising way of improving educational attainment among children by running a supplementary education programme alongside that in the state schools.
	My noble friend Lady Jay spoke about AIDS in Africa. She covered that topic well. I understand that AIDS is now the biggest single threat to African development. In some areas, the infection rates are as high as 30 per cent. It is estimated that 2.3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. That is a tragedy not only for the families that are directly affected; the HIV/AIDS epidemic is also cutting economic growth by more than 1 per cent a year, because some of the most productive members of the workforce are affected. Another problem results from the epidemic; that is, the social crisis caused by the large number of children orphaned by AIDS and the need for programmes to help them and their families as their parents reach death.
	Although the figures in some sub-Saharan African countries are very high, there is hope to be gleaned from the situation in Uganda. Largely due to prevention programmes, HIV prevalence there has fallen to 8 per cent. I understand that that is the best record in Africa.
	I shall conclude by repeating what I said a moment ago. The support of children who have become AIDS orphans is a particular problem in many parts of Africa. I am pleased both that DfID has accepted that as part of its work and that many development agencies working with children are making a particular point of supporting those unfortunate children and helping them to develop their lives.
	I give the Government a great deal of credit for their work in development aid. I would like them to promise to meet the 0.7 per cent target.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for giving it the opportunity to debate an important issue. I congratulate him on his forceful speech.
	Other noble Lords have painted broad pictures of the AIDS situation and of the need for action. I shall concentrate on three issues that are part of the overall poverty situation: malaria; HIV/AIDS, to which reference has been made; and agriculture, especially livestock agriculture. We are part of a global village and we should take care of our poorer neighbours in it.
	Malaria is one of the major problems of the developing world. I shall focus particularly on sub-Saharan Africa, but it is a major problem throughout the world. The vast majority of deaths occur in Africa, with 300 million new cases occurring every year and 1 million deaths. Ninety per cent of all malaria occurs in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria is a disease of poverty and a cause of poverty. It is estimated to cost Africa more than 12 billion dollars per year, and yet it could be controlled for a fraction of that cost by using insecticide-impregnated bed nets and insect control. Economists estimate that malaria is responsible for a growth penalty of up to 1.3 per cent per year. When that is aggregated over a period of years, it makes a major difference to the GNP in malaria-affected countries when compared with those without malaria.
	Apart from its lethal effects, malaria has the indirect effect of sapping the energy of the workforce. It also saps initiative, hampers schooling and damages the social structure of a country.
	Malaria comes with other major problems such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Those three diseases form the major health problems for mankind in the poverty world. I shall not touch on tuberculosis but I would like to identify HIV/AIDS as a problem—not only because of the medical difficulties it causes but for its fundamental effect on the workforce, agriculture and the fight against poverty.
	The growing political commitment of African leaders to action against malaria is boosted by the "Roll Back Malaria" programme, a partnership developed in Abuja in Nigeria. A declaration was signed in 2000 endorsing a strategy of halving the number of cases of malaria by 2010. The strategy will include simple measures such as the use of insecticide-impregnated bed nets, vector control, prevention and management programmes and an increase in education.
	However, the resources needed to reach that goal by 2010 cannot be provided from the local countries alone—only 20 per cent can be provided in that way—and there is a major need for donor assistance to help the sub-Saharan countries to achieve it. One hopes that the United Kingdom will be able to help.
	The problem of HIV/AIDS has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and other noble Lords. It is of course a major issue. It was effectively reviewed by POST in December 2003. It is a stark fact that in sub-Saharan Africa 28 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with new infections running at 3.5 million per year—and the infection rate is growing. In Nigeria, for example, it is projected that 10 million to 15 million cases will occur by 2010 and in Ethiopia up to another 10 million.
	There is a desperate need for anti-viral drugs. The current ones are expensive—costing between 10,000 and 15,000 US dollars per completed course—and the emergence of drug-resistant viruses complicates the whole issue. Education is woefully inadequate—only one in four people have access to AIDS education—and only one in 20 have access to anti-AIDS drugs which would prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus from mother to child.
	The amount of aid for HIV/AIDS is substantial. The US Congress is asking for 15 billion US dollars over a period of five years to deal with the problem. The United Kingdom is following closely on the USA in donor funding through the Global Fund, donating £3 million in 2003 and £6 million in 2004. So we are playing our part. In addition, DfID is funding anti-viral and vaccine research to the tune of £16 million per year. Although these are substantial sums, they are still not enough and more needs to be done. I repeat, the issues of malaria and HIV/AIDS are problems for the global village to which I referred. They are "next door" problems and they need to be attended to.
	Finally, much of the agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa is made up of small rural farmers, who are beset with poverty and disease. If we are to improve the whole of agriculture—which has massive potential—in sub-Saharan Africa, there must be a change in the per capita reward of farming. Over the past 30 years, there has been only a 4 per cent increase in productivity in rural farming in Africa compared with 20 to 30 per cent in other parts of the world.
	In recent years, much of this has been due to the change in the population profile as a result of the AIDS epidemic. The people who would normally work on the farms are no longer there or are suffering severely from the AIDS epidemic. There has been a depletion in the workforce, a depletion in food productivity and an increasing dependence on older people.
	Much of agriculture is dependent on animals and the role of animals in the provision of draught power. I am particularly supportive of a DfID initiative to bring together Canadian, British, United States and Australian scientists to develop vaccines and anti-viral and anti-infectious disease drugs for the treatment of livestock diseases affecting farmers in Africa under what is known as the Global Alliance for Livestock Vaccine. It is a very good example of international co-operation and action. I hope that similar programmes will be encouraged by DfID in the future.
	Rural agriculture has a particularly important part to play in curing the massive problem of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Much will depend upon our handling it in a most effective way.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing the debate and for the wealth of information contained in his speech. With his long involvement with NGOs it might be appropriate for me to concentrate today on the part that voluntary agencies, such as Church-related groups, play in supplying aid to developing countries.
	The strengths of voluntary agencies are many. They can respond swiftly to need; they can raise funds directly from the general public; their overheads are small as much of the work is carried out by individuals; they can use networks developed for other purposes, such as local church congregations around the globe, so that there is a network of both information and delivery.
	There are, however, related difficulties. The general public are notoriously fickle in giving money to good causes. They respond well to urgent and immediate disasters, particularly if pictures are being dramatically shown on TV screens. They are less willing to give regularly for long-term aid unless the money is tied to a particular person or project. School fees for Mary in a village in Zambia can be raised from individuals here; money to meet the ongoing costs of teachers' salaries is more difficult to find. So voluntary organisations are wont to make their appeals in dramatic terms or in ways calculated to pull at human heart-strings.
	The small administrative costs of charities are to be welcomed but this means that they are often operating on a shoestring, and mistakes can be made through the lack of adequate professional staff. A host of enthusiastic volunteers is a great blessing but they need organising and co-ordinating, and nurturing their time and talents can be a skilled job.
	An evaluation of the way in which 12 large British charities responded to the food crisis in southern Africa in 2002 has just been published. The report well illustrates these strengths and weaknesses. The 12 charities together raised more than £16 million from the public and spent millions of pounds more of official aid from the Government. But in doing this it seems that they overstated the seriousness of the situation to the public, comparing it to the 1984 Ethiopian catastrophe in which at least 800,000 people died. It was not on that scale.
	However, there was something new about the 2002 appeal. It was the first time British charities had tried to avoid a full-scale humanitarian crisis rather than respond to one after it had happened. Instead of waiting for people to die, the agencies moved beforehand to prevent catastrophe. In other words, the charities were trying to build a fence around the top of the cliff of hunger rather than pick up the bodies at the bottom of the cliff after they had fallen.
	In addition, the evaluation reported that the charities had learned quickly how to work on a larger scale than previously and had co-ordinated their responses well. They were found to have been sensitive to local cultures and to have supported local groups. Most of the charities worked with local Church groups in Africa but the report found that some of these were totally out of their depth.
	On strengths and weaknesses, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pressed for more scrutiny and accountability in the donation of aid. We cannot fault these charities for seeking to be open and accountable in a world and continent where neither is always common. The agencies hope that their openness to independent evaluation will encourage the public to support future appeals in the confidence that their money will be well spent; and I echo that hope. It will be of interest to hear from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House how Her Majesty's Government plan to strengthen their relationships with aid charities in the years to come.
	Africa is like the man who has been hit by 16 bullets, and they still keep coming. He is hurt; he is staggering; but he is still alive. The bullets of HIV/AIDS, political corruption, failed harvest, malaria, ignorance and disease continue to take their toll. The task of combating them is one in which both government and NGOs have their part to play. But this is not merely a question of the best way of managing aid; it is also a moral question.
	The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, led us into the philosophy of aid for good or ill. Perhaps I may add my reflections to his. We live in a world of greed, self-indulgence, rising debt and false prosperity, yet with no real strength or self-confidence, where the gap between rich and poor both within and between nations continues to increase. We urgently need a globalisation of moral responsibility.
	There are those, some holding senior office, who say that this widening gap between rich and poor is of no significance. But decades ago, J K Galbraith warned us of the danger of breaking the social contract which held that while some might be richer and some poorer all could expect both protection and a chance in the social system.
	That is what development aid is basically about. It seeks to restore life and health, not only for their own sake, but as a sign that every person matters, every person has a value in society and can expect protection and opportunity. Unfortunately, protection for all can become protectionism for the wealthy and powerful and opportunity for all becomes hollow without access to food, health, education and markets.
	I am not always uncritical of Her Majesty's Government, or any government. But I believe that they are to be congratulated on taking the lead in seeking to persuade western governments to be more generous in providing development aid. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose prudence does not prevent his being personally committed to this work; and we have been well served by a succession of equally committed International Development Secretaries.
	The money that a government such as ours can generate and deliver makes the resources of charities seem trivial but there is a symbiotic relationship. The more people are involved in giving of their time and money to development aid through the charities, the more the social climate is formed and generated which enables governments to be generous with the public purse. And the more committed the Government are to development aid and the eradication of poverty, the more the charities feel that they are not giving their all in some kind of social vacuum but are part of a resilient and sustainable partnership.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on enabling us to have this important debate. However, there is, of course, another side to the development aid coin: the eradication of debt and the manipulation of markets to which the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Freeman, referred in their speeches. In 1776, Samuel Johnson made what we might call the green pea argument when he said that he was prepared to pay half a guinea for a dish of green peas. Why? I quote him:
	"You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay more to those who work as the recompense of their labours than when you give money to charity".
	The radical American theologian Jim Wallis uses different words to make the same point, when he says:
	"Stop asking what you can give to the poor—just stop taking from them".

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate whose views on voluntary organisations, as a member of several, I very much appreciate.
	In the context of the comprehensive and penetrating survey by my noble friend Lord Judd, I want to underline that the purpose of development aid is to do itself out of a job. In time, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, suggested, growth should take over and attract investment to take the place of aid. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who has expertise, of course, in the area emphasised agriculture. I very much want to follow that and ask: can agriculture be the engine of growth? Our Department for International Development thinks so, and has put over £145 million into direct support for agriculture. Its new document Agriculture and poverty reduction: unlocking the potential sets out a strong case for backing agriculture which is very timely. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation says in its latest report:
	"countries which succeeded in reducing hunger were characterised specifically by more rapid growth in their agricultural sectors".
	The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD)—I join the tribute of my noble friend Lady Jay to the leadership of my noble friend Lady Amos in support for NePAD—has now published a Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme, half of which is to be funded from within Africa.
	The advantages of focusing on agriculture are that first of all, it is at the heart of where poverty is deepest. Three quarters of the 1.2 billion people who survive on less than a dollar a day live and work in rural areas. Agriculture can best meet their most immediate needs: its product, food, is their first essential; in general in Africa it provides two thirds of employment; and it is also half of exports. So growth in agriculture will benefit the poor most. But whereas in sub-Saharan Africa agricultural production declined and the absolute number of people going hungry increased between 1980 and 2001, in south-east Asia rapid agricultural productivity gains lifted millions out of poverty. To learn from that success is really necessary if our international goal of halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015 is to be met. What are the challenges to development aid for agricultural production?
	Agriculture-led poverty reduction relies on small farms. How viable are small farms? They certainly can be. I was in Vietnam over the new year and saw its astonishing record in growth, now 7 per cent of GDP, halving the proportion of people living in poverty to 29 per cent. Agriculture is its big success story. It is now the second largest exporter of rice, by volume, in the world. It does this mainly with small farms, buffaloes rather than tractors, and very expert hard-working farmers. DfID is set to be the biggest donor in the country and it well repays the British taxpayer's funding. But networks of small farms need underpinning.
	Crucial is access to credit, even on a small scale. I am a great supporter of micro-finance—that is, small loans where peer pressure is substituted for collateral—and I declare an interest as an associate of Opportunity International; and I see that the World Bank announced a pilot last June for grants of 225 million dollars over three to four years to improve the financial services available to small and medium-sized enterprises, including expanding and regularising micro-finance institutions. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell me whether our government support this initiative and encourage its application to agriculture?
	Tied up with access to credit is land title. In Ethiopia—and I ought to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the British-Ethiopia All-Party Parliamentary Group—the Derg regime took land into state ownership, and one result was that there was almost no investment in marginal land. Forests were stripped and topsoil was lost, contributing to drought and famine. Now the Government are creating a form of title to land which can be inherited. I hope my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development can encourage them to provide for at least a three-generation period, so as to create strong incentives for improving land value. The Economist, in an article last week, failed to give the Ethiopian Government credit for land reform. This was not as misleading as the BBC's concentration on the sensational famine of the 1980s and emergency food aid, also last week, which ignored what would really lift Ethiopia out of aid dependency, namely investment in Ethiopia's emerging agricultural production units, which such a programme can only deter. I very much commend John Vidal's article in the Guardian on 15 January, setting the record straight.
	Land title, of course, is more than an incentive to improvement. It is the most common collateral for asset-backed lending—the next step up from micro-credit. As the Economist says, asset-backed lending is one of the engines of growth, but, perhaps only one in 10 in Africa owns the title to their property. DfID has some very successful programmes of training in governance expertise such as tax collection systems. I wonder if it also works in helping countries to develop land surveying, land registries and pro-poor property law?
	Asian agriculture has also benefited from genetically modified crops. The kind of farming which does not require heavy chemical expenditure is pro-poor and it would be interesting to know what research in innovatory agricultural techniques DfID puts at the service of the developing world. One of the aims of the NePAD agricultural programme is to promote agricultural research such that spending doubles over 10 years. However, it is no use having efficient agriculture if there are no proper trade prospects, as several noble Lords have said. Can my noble friend say how the Doha round is now progressing?
	The other big external issue, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, is commodity price fluctuation. How does DfID's commitment to rapid liberalisation of agricultural trade take account of the need to shelter fledgling sectors against external shocks like abrupt changes in terms of trade?
	Finally, I would like to raise an awkward issue. This concerns middle-income countries, not the poorest. For instance, in India, a middle-income country with good growth rates, there is a very large number of poor people. The number of those going hungry there rose by 19 million from 1995 to 1997. But once a country has enough resources to create satisfactory growth and attract investment, donors might well conclude that their aid should be transferred to poorer countries, even though the poorest of the poor are still there. It is national redistribution that is the problem. How can donors—should donors—intrude on sovereignty with their own views on redistribution, or insist that national and federal governments get more of a grip on their own local administrations? What can donor governments do?

Lord Brennan: My Lords, it is the moral duty of the peoples of the developed nations to make reasonable provision for the poor peoples of the world. The objectives that accompany that noble duty are well established and are interdependent: that there be more aid; that it be effectively used; and that poor countries be assisted to make economic and institutional progress towards self-sufficiency.
	The key issue raised by my noble friend Lord Judd in this timely debate is: how can the United Kingdom best pursue those objectives in the foreseeable future? Our Government, particularly when my noble friend was a Minister at DfID, had and continue to have an excellent record, both in the amount and the quality of development aid for which they are responsible. The commitment of the Government and the country is well encapsulated in the International Development Act 2002. Its brevity bespeaks the clarity of our national purpose, which is to provide development assistance likely to reduce poverty by furthering sustainable development and improving the welfare of populations to achieve lasting benefits. Within that new statutory framework, I commend to the House and the Minister three interrelated policy objectives for the future.
	First, that there should be more aid. The initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the international financing facility is innovative, beneficial to all and should be implemented. It should be a complement to current development aid, not become an alternative, which so many people in the developing world fear may happen. Moreover, it should provide continuity and consistency, so that poor countries are not subject to the vagaries of national or international political pressure. Furthermore, it should alleviate the debt burden. I therefore hope that in the coming year, 2005, when we have the presidency of the G8 and the European presidency, the maximum amount of international persuasion and pressure will be exercised by our Government to introduce the IFF or an acceptable variant of it.
	I said that that proposal was complementary to and not alternative to existing aid. Many in the developing world are very anxious indeed about the impact of expenditure on the reconstruction of Iraq on their development aid budgets. One understands the political realities that require such large amounts of money to be spent in that country, but let us not forget that it is an oil-rich country. It has the capacity in the long term to fend for itself and, presumably, to pay back some if not all of the money put into it by us in the near future.
	I raised that point for my noble friend to deal with for a reason which I can illustrate by way of example. Because of Spain's redistribution of its development aid towards Iraqi redevelopment—and Spain was an ally of ours and the US in Iraq—the total national Spanish development aid budget to the rest of the world is now 0.03 per cent of GDP. That is an incredible statistic from a wealthy European country in the light of the declared objective of 0.7 per cent for us all. I understand the realities, but the world needs reassurance. How will budgets be distributed for the future? I invite the Government—if not in this debate then at a prompt occasion in the near future—to make a policy statement on their financial structure and system for development aid over the next few years.
	The second objective is to let the aid be used effectively. I should like to make two policy points here, one about the world outside and one about here in our country. To prevent famine is vital; the relief of starvation is the primary object of much development aid; no one can deny its importance. However, in order to achieve that and in order to balance budgets, surely the position cannot be that we should stop providing aid to countries where people are not starving but suffer poverty of the spirit.
	Where nations do not function well, there is no future in sight and no progress to be made. In Peru, for example, our Government and the British Council have for years run a radio programme, several times a week, all over the country, educating ordinary people in that country, especially indigenous Indians, about the simple things of life—how a community works, how legislation operates, how to deal with your councillor, how to go to the doctor, how to survive in a functioning society. Its budget in Peru is dependent on us. Our programme may or may not continue. Its value is inestimable; its cost modest. So in attempting to end poverty, let us not give up on the poverty of the spirit.
	Internally, whatever we say here, the young of this country—the idealists of this country, who are indifferent to our political and legislative process at the moment—are not indifferent to the fate of the poor of the world. It stimulates them. It enthuses them. It makes them think that government and society have got worth. So I call upon the Minister and the department in the future to ensure that DfID's work is properly advanced in this country, and thereby to increase the budget up to the 0.7 per cent objective.
	Finally, let there be good, progressive governance in poor countries. I fully endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. In the 21st century there should be no more excuses and no more irresponsibility from some of the self-ruling elites of poor countries. It cannot be accepted any more. The message has to be clear: "First, you introduce in your countries proper financial systems in which commerce and business, macro and micro, can function. Secondly, you apply simple basic standards to work, business and the environment embodied in the United Nations Global Compact. Thirdly, you stamp out corruption". There is no more insidious barrier to progress in reducing poverty than corruption. We should fully endorse and campaign for the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We therefore seek from the Government a commitment to make countries change for the better in so far as we can.
	I opened by saying that development aid is a moral duty. To provide it well is a virtue, a virtue that not only gives succour to the poor but adds to the strength of our national spirit, which is imbued in this country with decency, generosity and a respect for worthy ideals—all of which mean development aid.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for this chance to speak about development in the Arab world, a region with which Britain has had a long relationship. Unfortunately that has been tarnished by recent events and our Government's conversion to regime change in Iraq. Two years ago we were still stunned by the events of 9/11. While Ministers and defence analysts were devising new measures against terrorism, diplomats, academics and civil servants began to look for positive ways of both explaining and responding to the so-called "clash of civilisations". As I shall mention, the two aims do not live together happily.
	The aid community was slow to catch up. It was only after the second intifada in Israel/Palestine and during sanctions against Iraq that NGOs began to realise how little they knew about the Arab world—for half a century the province of travellers, oil men and devotees in the Foreign Office. There was a general belief, except among a minority, that all Arab countries were oil rich and could look after themselves. This is only a cameo, but it shows how wrong we were. Events have proved that it has been our lack of awareness and commitment towards the Arab world in the West—especially the Anglo-Saxon West—as much as socio-economic conditions in the region itself which have contributed not to the acts of terrorism in themselves but to the anger and prejudice against the West which has allowed them to happen.
	There has been a spate of reports on this dilemma, from the UN's excellent Arab Human Development Reports, to the papers given to the FCO conference last April; from the British Council's survey, to policy documents including DfID's latest regional assistance plan for the Middle East and North Africa. That carefully worded document, which I commend, takes the UN report a stage further and bravely sets out a framework for poverty reduction—which is what DfID is all about; it is not primarily about changing attitudes.
	In the past decade our aid through DfID and the EU has been deliberately more concentrated on the poorest countries. That has meant that the range of programmes has been diminishing. Only Yemen in this region now falls into the category of poorest. I hope that this is not a firm trend in our policy towards the Arab world, where there is much inequality and where some countries deserve special attention. I shall leave Iraq aside, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, because it has obviously become a special case. Large sums have somehow been found for its reconstruction, which would have been unheard of before the war.
	Jordan is a good example of a country where the UK could have a greater impact, but the DfID programme is small and winding down on the grounds that Jordan is a middle income country. The same is true in Egypt. Yemen, where we now have an active role, the West Bank and Gaza seem to be the only programmes in which DfID can have complete confidence. Britain's firm support for UNRWA and the EU programme "Protecting Palestinian Institutions" has been admirable, however frustrating the political background.
	Another government initiative in the Arab world is the new Global Opportunities Fund. Only launched by the FCO in May 2003, it has a budget of £120 million over three years, mainly in support of a hotchpotch of anti-terrorism, environment, democracy and other global objectives. Hidden inside it is a tiny £1.5 million programme called "Engagement with the Islamic World". This encompasses economic reform in Morocco, human rights in Egypt, the development of a Syrian money market, capacity building for women in Lebanon and training in journalism through the BBC World Service Trust. The FCO describes it as a systematic strategy across government for engaging with the Islamic world and promoting peaceful political and social reform in Arab countries. This is an encouraging development, which deserves much more prominence. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the budget is to be doubled during the coming year, and that eventually it will be somehow more closely related to DfID's programme. To launch such a programme in the FCO alongside anti-terrorism looks like phoney diplomacy and not true development.
	The Global Opportunities Fund also works through organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and the British Council. Besides its main programme, the British Council has brought young people together through its admirable "Connecting Futures" programme and continually looks into ways to support local initiatives.
	My concern in this debate is that while these programmes are undoubtedly doing good work, much more needs to be done to encourage organisations in the Arab world to carry out development themselves. One of the themes of the UNDP report has been labour migration; the way in which Western universities and institutions have drawn off skilled labour that the Arab world cannot afford to lose. Over 130,000 Arabs are currently studying in the EU or in the US, some 85 per cent of those under postgraduate programmes. Many of them are unlikely to return home at all. A reversal of this trend is urgently needed, through a thorough rethinking of our scholarships programme.
	The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, mentioned the buzz words such as "capacity building" and "an enabling environment". The aim must be to create stronger networks of knowledge and in-country training in such fields as financial services, small-and-medium-sized enterprises, local government and institutional development, so that planners and accountants as well as engineers and doctors do not feel driven to join the brain drain. Much of this work is already undertaken by the private sector, particularly the large accountancy firms. Here, there are problems of corporate responsibility and accountability. I mention, as a trustee of Christian Aid, a report on this subject published today.
	The Liberal Democrats rightly called attention recently to the role of the Adam Smith Institute. Apart from the considerable cost, the insertion of privately contracted consultants and specialists into fragile ministries or to avoid elites in developing countries can inhibit rather than reinforce what is being done. It would be much better to create shorter-term assignments, which build in training in, say, banking services online in harmony with established financial institutions to avoid the need for outside intervention.
	There is a long tradition of charity in Islam, which contains the seed of civil society. Community and consultation are important tenets of Islam and they chime in with our more formalised notions of democracy. An exchange of skills within different sectors of charitable work, such as education and health, could transform attitudes and enable changes to take place, such as the setting up of new NGOs. There are always political risks that such charities may become too exposed, but these risks must be judged according to the society concerned.
	My visit to Palestine gave me an insight into the quality of Palestinian NGOs. Here, one finds experienced, young aid workers who feel so much frustration when they are capable of dealing with problems but cannot either cross the check points or find resources to do their work and form links with other societies where similar work is going on.
	I shall end with an unfashionable suggestion. Let us not apply the middle income rule too harshly in the Arab world. I happen to know that even Saudi Arabia has poverty, not only geographical but also in its health and education sectors. We tend to think of large hospitals in the capital cities there, but there is a new interest in charitable outreach work and the development of civil society. I declare an interest, since my wife is one of the few people who have done research on this. Several health charities there require a range of management skills which could be provided by Britain or other countries in the region. Our approach to aid in the Arab world, like in so many areas, needs much more flexibility and original thinking if it is to have the required impact to help strengthen civil society and prevent an increase of Islamic extremism by small minorities fostered by social inequalities.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd, who launched the debate in his usual eloquent style. I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lord Brennan; that is, to allow abject poverty to persist into the 21st century is immoral, because we have the means to remove it. Instead, we use these means for selfish or destructive purposes, towards levels of consumption that are bad for our health and the world's health and we spend vast sums for wars and preparations for future possible wars. To eliminate gross poverty from the world would improve our lives too, and not only in a moral sense. I quote from page 12 of the most recent DfID report, with an introduction by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Talking about poverty, it states,
	"We ourselves cannot escape its impact, as events over the past year have continued to show. We have to improve the lives of people around the world if we are to live free from war and disease . . . to address the causes of environmental degradation, illegal migration or the trade in illicit drugs, or take advantage of the economic benefits that increased demand in the developing world would create for workers in the UK".
	That last part of the paragraph deserves emphasis. Not mentioned in the DfID report is the relationship of poverty to terrorism. It is not a direct relationship, as my noble friend Lord Judd pointed out. Poor people may become bitter and desperate, and they are easy recruiting material for extremist movements.
	As well as aid, we must consider the world economic backdrop, as other noble Lords have pointed out. The economic playing field is tilted sharply against the south in three main ways. The first of these is the persistence of the debt problem, despite HIPC. I gather that Uganda's debt has increased from £2 billion to £2.2 billion since some of its debts were written off. Uganda and other poor indebted countries often still must pay more to service their debts than they spend on health and education. The total debt servicing costs of the developing world are 343 billion dollars annually, which is 6.5 times the total development assistance, which is 52 billion dollars.
	The second adverse tilt consists of the terms of trade. As many noble Lords have mentioned, there are still persistent tariffs against imports from the south, particularly agricultural products, which are its mainstay as my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned. That is especially so if the products are value-added. Oxfam has calculated that those barriers cost the south 100 billion dollars a year. In contrast, developing countries are required to lower their tariffs against imports from the north as part of liberalising their economies—a pre-condition for receiving loans or grants from the World Bank or the IMF. That allows subsidised cheap food and cotton, for example, to be imported from the north, which undermines the prices of local agricultural products and sends many farmers into bankruptcy.
	Thirdly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dubs, the prices of stable commodities such as coffee are now at rock bottom, sometimes making it hardly worth the effort of harvesting them.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the steps that the Government are taking to make trade more equitable by tackling some of the issues that I have mentioned, and to make the HIPC initiative more effective. A suggestion by development NGOs is that debt-servicing costs should never be greater than 10 per cent of any national budget. Would it not be fair for unpayable debts to be written off when total servicing payments reached or surpassed the amount of the original debt? It has always seemed unfair to me that an individual or firm can be declared bankrupt, but that that is not an option for a nation.
	The work of DfID on the ground is widely respected, as all noble Lords have mentioned. However, I am still somewhat doubtful about how it was justifiable to pay the Adam Smith Institute 70-odd million dollars to privatise the public services of Andhra Pradesh. I still have some problems with that, despite George Monbiot's article in the Guardian being answered by the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that the decision to work in co-operation with governments to strengthen their effectiveness is very good in principle. And a good example of much appreciated assistance is the operation in Vietnam—which my noble friend Lady Whitaker discussed—and which I have also just visited. Vietnam has a stable government and already has a good record in poverty reduction. We are helping there in the health, education and rural transport sectors.
	Many countries present far greater difficulties because corrupt or ineffective government prevails. Even more difficult are countries involved in conflict, the most prominent at the moment being Iraq, of course. I am sure that my noble friend will give us an update on how the DfID operation there is progressing in the current difficult security situation, and what the total costs are likely to be.
	In many other countries with poorly functioning governments, there is still a strong role for international and local partner NGOs that know their communities and ensure that donors' money is well spent. That is not always the case if it is given to central government, as other noble Lords have mentioned. Those NGOs often co-operate with and strengthen government-run services at a community level and are very well trusted. That is certainly the case with the two NGOs with which I am most closely associated, ICROSS in Kenya, and Healthlink Worldwide, which I am glad to say is funded in part by DfID and has an ongoing programme in the occupied territories of Palestine, in partnership with local organisations.
	I hope that DfID takes care—I am sure that it does—to assess whether resources given to failing governments, or any governments for that matter, are not wasted when non-governmental organisations and other organisations in civil society can do the job of eliminating poverty, if they are supported more effectively, at a local level. They assist rather than replace government services such as dispensaries or schools, which are almost always desperately underfunded.
	I ask my noble friend to consider the vital importance of continuing and, I hope, increasing support for reproductive and family-planning services. She will be aware of the Ottawa commitment of November 2002 on the issue, which recommended that 5 to 10 per cent of national development budgets be used for reproductive health. In the United Kingdom's case, that would be between £200 million and £400 million. I am told that £270 million is spent by DfID on HIV and reproductive health together, which falls within the range. However, I suspect that most of that money goes to HIV programmes. Can my noble friend say how the sum is allocated between the two, as I am sure that she will describe our important HIV/AIDS initiatives?
	How well are those initiatives integrated with reproductive health? The two are really inseparable and integration makes both more effective, but I fear that the concentration on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS may tend to be at the expense of reproductive health, which is already suffering because of the withdrawal of American funds. In the long term, it will be equally important in the fight against poverty.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his passionate and serious introduction to the debate, and join others in commending the Government on their remarkable commitment to reducing poverty. A striking part of their policies has been to aid countries to focus on poverty and then to provide resources. I am confident that that programme will continue, especially the debt cancellation, and one hopes that it will rise to the desired level that the noble Lord set out.
	My comments will be on the barriers preventing poverty reduction caused by environmental and technical problems. Others have raised the issues of law and order and medical problems, which are also important. I want to mention the ways in which UK expertise, both inside and outside government, could be used more effectively. I declare an interest as president of ACOPS, a non-governmental body, and of the Advisory Committee for Natural Disaster Reduction.
	Questions have been raised about the allocation of resources of different departments in Whitehall, so I begin by asking whether there are genuine inter-departmental reviews about the relative effectiveness of expenditure by different departments on projects related to poverty reduction. I have not seen any. Many departments spend money on such projects, as is touched on in general terms in DfID's annual report. However, cost-effectiveness and relative importance are not reviewed. That relates to an issue before the Science and Technology Committee, which is reviewing the effectiveness of international agreements and the UK's involvement. As I shall explain, DfID may not take as much interest as it should in its own expenditure and that of other departments. That may be a curious statement, but I shall come back to it.
	As the World Summit on Sustainable Development concluded, and as the executive director of UNEP explained in his Callaghan lecture recently, environmental pressures, fighting environmental degradation and mitigating environmental disasters are an essential part of dealing with poverty. There was very strong support for that by the then Secretary of State, Clare Short, in Johannesburg. Those factors impact most strongly on the poorest communities. Rich people and communities could often get by, but the effects are worst for the poorest communities.
	Through many techniques, it is possible to make better predictions—warnings—and provide better education, better specialist advice and better infrastructure investment to deal with some of those problems. The British Government contribute importantly through the work of DfID, but also through the work of other agencies such as the Met Office, Defra and the Department of Transport. However, whereas resources for the DfID budget have increased considerably—the figure of 90 per cent was cited—resources for other departments have not increased in proportion. Why not?
	For example, those departments are helping countries to provide warning of natural disasters and training local staff. In developing countries with poor living conditions and vulnerable communities, disasters have a disproportionate effect. However, as one sees in Asia, devoting resources to those areas, through better local organisation and technology, can greatly reduce the devastating impact. For example, we saw that it was the poorest people who suffered greatly in the recent Iranian earthquake. People who live in well-built housing in Los Angeles do not suffer.
	Even in Africa, one can see big differences in how countries are making progress in that area. A devastating environmental impact on poverty is the destruction of habitats and, I regret, the environmental piracy, to use a strong term, of the richer countries, whose fishing fleets have destroyed fish stocks and coastal habitats, especially off Africa. For example, modest help from the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency to African countries is helping them to police those areas, but the amount of money available is extremely limited. More resources devoted by the UK—and, as my noble friend Lady Jay pointed out, European Union policies to reduce European piracy—could make a great difference.
	In Africa, more than half the population live on coasts. The World Bank reported that by 2050 not only will most people be living in cities—70 per cent—but most of them will be living in coastal cities. Under NePAD, a new African centre for dealing with the coastal environment has been set up in Nairobi—a concrete achievement of the NePAD initiative. Some of the worst features of poverty in those cities are diseases caused by shortage of clean water, poor sanitation and, as a West African Minister commented last week, abuse of those facilities.
	As a Seychelles Minister explained when he addressed the All-Party Group on Africa in October, it is vital that education for those countries—and perhaps more widely—should be based on environmental understanding. We should begin not with, "The cat sat on the mat", but by reading and talking about the water, the beaches and the plants, because they are the essence of life. The UK can contribute more in the way that it is already contributing to help the environment of the Seychelles, but also more widely through that concept of education and the environment.
	Technology, especially recently, has a bad reputation in relation to poverty—dams, big power stations and so on have been commented on—but I am confident that technology is undergoing great transformation. It will play a vital part in future. What efforts are being made by the DTI and DfID to exploit new, sustainable local electricity generation using photovoltaic systems, for example, which will enable people to provide local water purification? In the same way, mobile phones have provided vital communication where other networks do not exist. In fact, with the Internet, that has enabled some rural communities to choose the best crops to plant—which can vary greatly with the seasons—and how to market them.
	That brings me to the World Bank's Global Environmental Facility, which is a great initiative by the international community to involve both developing and donor countries in environmental projects aimed at sustainable development and poverty reduction. Billions of dollars have been and continue to be spent. The United Kingdom, the United States and other leading countries recently increased their contribution to that agency.
	DfID is the department responsible for ensuring that the UK contribution is spent wisely. However—I have experience of this, having heard about some projects—because the UK does not contribute as a bilateral donor to some of those projects, it has little influence on them, although it is funding them to a considerable extent. Therefore, UK expertise cannot be involved. Given that supporting the Global Environmental Facility is a major plank in the UK Government's aid and environment policy, which I strongly support, can my noble friend comment on whether the current arrangements for management and monitoring are entirely satisfactory?
	That should be one of the best ways forward, especially as it should lead to the more effective participation of the private sector in solving environmental and poverty problems. I join the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in hoping that that can be given more emphasis in future.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing this important debate on an area in which he has such expertise and such a proven record. Time and again, he challenges us all, not simply those on his own Benches.
	I start by picking up one point from the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned, Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Union is currently undertaking an investigation into EU international development assistance, a subject that is certainly germane to this debate. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, regrets that he cannot be here today, because he is attending a meeting in Brussels. Aid channelled through the EU accounts for one quarter of UK development aid. Whether that is being put to good use is clearly relevant here. However, I will not today prejudge our findings, which we look forward to presenting to your Lordships shortly.
	Therefore, let me confine myself to the remaining 75 per cent of UK aid. Developing countries account for 80 per cent of the world's population—5 billion people. By 2050, that proportion will be 90 per cent of the world's population. It is thus clear not only for moral reasons, as the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Rea, pointed out, but for economic reasons how important it is that the developed world assists our less well-off neighbours.
	Doing what we can to reduce conflict around the world; removing trade barriers among the rich nations, as the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Dubs, said; and investing in education and training, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Judd, said, are all essential if poorer countries are to prosper. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, emphasised, it is economic progress that will best tackle poverty. However, we all agree that aid still has a major role to play. The Government have done a great deal in the field of international development, and their expansion of aid, to which other noble Lords have referred, is most welcome.
	Nevertheless, as the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Dubs, emphasised, it is surely time that the UK had a timetable for moving to the UN-agreed level of 0.7 per cent of GDP spent on aid. Belgium, Ireland, France and Finland have all adopted such timetables. The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have already met that target. As ActionAid pointed out, reaching the target would cost only half of the extra £5.5 billion mobilised for the war and reconstruction effort in Iraq.
	Here, I reiterate what we have said from these Benches many times before and perhaps strike a discordant note in what has been a debate containing much agreement. I emphasise how deeply we regret the fact that the Government took us into war in Iraq. Not only has that had a most damaging effect on Britain's position in the world, it has also served as a terrible distraction from major global problems.
	In the autumn, it became evident that not only had it proved to be such a distraction, it had also siphoned off aid money, as was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Brennan, and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The noble Baroness, the then Secretary of State, Clare Short, and the Prime Minister all promised in advance of the war in Iraq that such action would not result in the diversion of funds from poor countries. Those promises were broken.
	As Oxfam pointed out last October:
	"The Prime Minister assured us in a letter sent in April this year that in order to fund reconstruction in Iraq, no aid would be diverted from other emergencies or from programmes supporting poor people anywhere else in the world".
	It points out that the announcement of those cuts,
	"means that he is breaking his promise and letting down the poor people in those countries that rely on that funding".
	The noble Baroness herself explained on 10 November last year that,
	"Over the next two years, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes".—[Official Report, 10/11/03; col. WA 156.]
	All of this was caught up in DfID's decision to redirect its budget from so-called middle income countries to the poorest countries around the world. In some ways that may seem reasonable enough. But this obscures the fact that some of the world's poorest people may well live in so-called middle income countries. A strategy that addresses poverty around the world should, surely, look at the poorest people wherever they are to be found.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pointed out, South Africa—now plagued with HIV/AIDS, and also receiving many refugees from Zimbabwe—counts as a middle income country. Does that mean that we should now turn away from South Africa? All but a handful of countries in Latin America count as middle income countries, and DfID's Latin American programme has suffered as a result. As CAFOD has put it, to take money from so-called middle income countries to fund the reconstruction of Iraq is,
	"robbing Peter to pay Paul, when Peter is as poor as Paul".
	I now turn to what seems to me to be the most major crisis facing us in development terms today: the problem of HIV/AIDS. If we thought that, up until now, Africa faced major developmental, economic and social problems, that is surely as nothing compared with what it now faces. The noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have most cogently addressed this issue. HIV is the pressing problem at the moment.
	In some areas, HIV/AIDS is affecting 60 per cent of the working population. It is estimated that there will be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. Those are children who are not likely to be in education and who have no social stability or preparation for a stable economic future. Their future is very bleak.
	Some 40 to 50 million people may well now be infected. I welcome the move to extend the availability of cheap drugs in developing countries. These drugs have dramatically reduced the death toll in affluent countries—we have certainly seen that in the United Kingdom. It thus becomes ever more vital that we now help to get cheaper drugs to people in poorer countries so that their life spans can be extended and so that we can help to keep families together. Worst hit is sub-Saharan Africa, but there is also great concern for China, the former countries of the Soviet Union and many other areas.
	Can the noble Baroness tell us in what ways the Government seek to tackle this matter? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have also asked, what priority will they give to this when they chair the G8 summit and when they hold the presidency of the EU? If they say that they are to give this matter a high priority, how do they see that translating into actions?
	While the WHO programme of 3 million people on anti-retroviral treatment by 2005 is to be welcomed, this is surely too little, too late. What expansion of this programme do the Government anticipate—not simply to meet its requirements, but to expand it? What progress is being made to develop health care systems to deliver what is needed? How is the care of orphans going to be placed at the centre of policies in those countries? Will DfID seek to have a continued role in HIV prevention treatment programmes in developing countries?
	Before concluding, I shall pick up on a couple of issues that have been mentioned in this debate. Can the Minister say what is happening with the International Finance Facility? Welcome though it may be, does she agree that it is not a substitute for reaching the 0.7 per cent target? Is she aware that other European countries have signalled their reluctance to support it unless the UK adopts a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent? Can it flourish if the United States does not back it? How does she feel it can be co-ordinated with other large bilateral and multilateral initiatives like the Global Fund and the US AIDS Initiative?
	Secondly, can she tell me how debt relief is to be included in the aid budget?
	In conclusion, I say again how much I appreciate the introduction of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. While I welcome much that the Government have done, I fear that some of their very laudable efforts have been knocked off course by their activities in the Middle East. I look forward to the assurances that the noble Baroness can give us today.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating this debate. I agree with him that the UK aid programme has been a success for many years. It is probably one of the best aid programmes in the world. But there are bound to be failures. It is not always helpful to find someone to blame when things go wrong. In fact, one might go further and postulate that, if there are no failures, then not enough risks have been taken and not enough courage shown in initiating bold entrepreneurial projects.
	As many speakers have said, one of the best ways of giving aid to help in the fight against poverty in developing countries is to give financial support to reputable charities that have a good track record of giving effective aid, and which have had success in the all-important activity of capacity building.
	My wife and I have just returned from one of our many visits to west Africa, where we operate on a hospital ship that has three operating theatres and 70 beds in two wards. This is a charity called Mercy Ships, which provides operations that are not usually available free of charge. We work with local surgeons, introducing them to new techniques and treatments. One of the many attractive features of this charity is that none of the 300 crew is paid: we all have to pay for our own food and keep on board—and that includes the captain. As a Scot, this use of charitable money appeals to me very much.
	As several noble Lords have already mentioned, one of the major problems in giving aid is ensuring that it gets to those who need it. Ann Gloag of Stagecoach generously set up several hospital units in Africa, but, being a canny Scot, she soon realised that too much of her money was leaking away into the wrong hands. She decided that the answer was to have her own ship. This led her to Mercy Ships, and resulted in her buying a 20 year-old Danish rail ferry that is currently being converted into another hospital ship in Newcastle. This will be completed by the end of the year, provided that we can raise the outstanding £8 million.
	Over the past 25 years, volunteers from Mercy Ships have operated on over 8,000 patients with advanced dental problems, cataracts, hare lips, huge jaw tumours and goitres, hernias down to their knees and women rendered incontinent through childbirth. Many of those women were outcasts, but successful treatment resulted in them being accepted back into their homes and the villages from which they had been expelled.
	I emphasise that we could never have done any of this work in Sierra Leone had it not been for the 2,000 British troops who did such a great job in restoring and maintaining peace. They also did many other invaluable jobs such as training the police and army and undertaking building and engineering projects. Great credit is due to them, as my noble friend Lord Freeman has already mentioned.
	When charities such as Mercy Ships come to one of the developing countries for a period of up to six months it is a great help. But what is needed is capacity building. We need to help them to build up and maintain these services themselves. To that end, we have established permanent land bases, run mainly by local people, to supply splints, orthoses, wheelchairs and artificial limbs for those disabled by diseases such as poliomyelitis and by the atrocities of war. We provide building materials and equipment to teach local people to dig wells and build clinics.
	We have supplied 40 goats, 80 sheep and seeds to the farmers in Sierra Leone who lost everything in the war, on condition that they give the firstborn lamb and some of their harvest to their neighbours. Last week, I noticed that our Chief Whip was wearing a silver model of a little goat in this lapel. He told me that it represented a charity called Kids for Kids, which loans six goats to a poor family for two years, providing them with milk for the children and allowing the family to keep the kid goats produced.
	In west Africa, perhaps the most lasting legacy will be the dental school that we are planning to set up to train dental assistants for a period of three months, which will enable them to carry out the most straightforward treatments. In the fistula hospital in Ethiopia I met an outstanding lady who had been taught to operate on fistulas. She underwent the operation herself 25 years previously. She has now carried out more than 2,000 such operations and must be the best fistula surgeon in the world. She can neither read nor write. In Togo, in west Africa, a local man in a mission hospital was taught how to do hernia repairs. He has now carried out more than 1,000 of those procedures and is probably the best hernia repairer in west Africa. He, too, can neither read nor write.
	The other great advantage of having lay surgeons is that they will not emigrate as so many doctors do. In fact, many noble Lords sitting in the House could be taught to carry out a straightforward operation. So long as their victims—I mean their patients—knew that they had no medical qualifications, that would be legal. Of course, one cannot operate on an animal without a licence.
	Teaching lay people to carry out operations in Africa is an unusual but highly effective kind of capacity building. But some politicians, professionals and liberal idealists resent that approach because they see it as providing second-class care to developing countries. But it should be seen as providing more care, and more appropriate care—in fact, it is the best care available under the present conditions.
	The United Nations recently inspected some of the capacity-building projects and found that little capacity was achieved in the long term. Its conclusion was that capacity-building efforts are best if they are demand-led—the people must want to do it. We must avoid capacity-building projects that we are sure that they need, when the people do not actually want them.
	Clear five-year objectives must be set with clear time frames for their achievement. It must be possible to increase the ability of local people at all levels to organise and set goals and performance targets effectively, and to do that with decreasing dependence on external support. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach emphasised and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, neatly expressed, in giving aid to developing countries, we should be trying to do ourselves out of a job in the long term—but what a long term it is.
	When it comes to HIV/AIDS, the role of heads of state has been crucial. Those presidents who have denied the problem have presided over disasters, whereas those who have been honest and given real leadership are well worth studying. Perhaps Africa has most to learn from President Museveni, whose campaign has led to a significant reduction in the incidence of HIV/AIDS, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs: from 31 per cent to 7 per cent among pregnant women. President Museveni's leadership and his close liaison with schools, Churches and NGOs has been inspiring. At the centre of his campaign has been the slogan "ABC"—abstinence, be faithful in marriage and condoms.
	The Overseas Development Agency, under my noble friend Lady Chalker, was a great supporter of NGOs and gave £3 million to the Mildmay AIDS hospice in Hackney to build a similar centre in Uganda at the invitation of President Museveni. My noble friend very wisely advised me, as the chairman, that the centre should concentrate on teaching as well as on out-patient care. As many as 90 orphans can be seen there in a day. They are all dying of AIDS, but their lives are improved by treating them and their many complications, as well as giving them a good square meal. We also encourage patients by lending them £50 to set up small businesses, which helps to relieve their poverty, feed the children and boost their morale.
	I visited Ugandan prisons and saw inmates acting in short four-minute plays, which were very powerful and demonstrated the appalling effects of AIDS and how it can be prevented. Local people seem to be much more effective than foreigners at getting the message across in their own way. Before leaving the subject of HIV/AIDS, perhaps I may also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her husband for all their work in tackling the AIDS problem, and also the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
	In summary, capacity building is the order of the day, but it is much more likely to work if we listen to the people we are trying to help and concentrate on what they want, rather than patronising them with our views on what we think they need.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing an excellent debate. His experience and expertise is greatly valued in this House. I thank the other noble Lords who participated in this debate for their very positive comments about the Government's development policy. However, noble Lords made it very clear that a great deal remains to be done. I shall return to the challenges in a moment.
	This Government have much to be proud of in the arena of international development. Spending has risen steadily, and, by 2006, we will be spending £4.6 billion on overseas development assistance. One billion pounds of that will be allocated to Africa, underlining our commitment to the continent. My noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pressed me to give a date for reaching 0.7 per cent. I cannot confirm a date today, but our commitment to reaching that goal remains firm.
	We have written off 100 per cent of debt owed to the UK by the poorest countries in the world. We have proposed a radical new international finance facility designed to raise the extra 50 billion dollars needed each year to achieve the millennium development goals, and we have untied all our aid so that recipient countries can spend it wherever they get greatest value for money.
	Over the past six years, a quiet revolution has been under way in British development policy, and its effects have rippled around the world. The Department for International Development is today one of the most respected donor organisations in the world. It is respected, not just for the reductions in poverty that have been delivered in developing countries, but also for the quality of its ideas. Above all, I believe that the department has come to be respected because it represents the next wave in development thinking and, in particular, the importance of having an integrated approach to development and globalisation. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of the importance of a joined-up approach. In particular he spoke about a cross-Whitehall approach. We saw this recently in our approach to the negotiations in Cancun. But we have also seen it in our conflict prevention work, the creation of the conflict prevention pool, which brings together the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID; our work on aid effectiveness with the Treasury and the sustainable development agenda with the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt asked me specifically about the nature of inter-departmental reviews on poverty. I can say to him that where we have joint targets these reviews take place.
	In a speech in Chicago in 1999, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out a new agenda on inter-dependence in foreign policy. We have come to realise that borders are of decreasing relevance in the world today because we have moving across those borders capital flow, migrant workers and refugees, infectious diseases and invasive species, trade and information and viruses both real and virtual. So we have come to recognise that the national interest and the global interest need to be aligned.
	It is this recognition which is at the heart of our development strategy. We face immediate security challenges in today's interconnected world and these are threats to which we must remain alert and respond to them. But there are development challenges which also pose a threat to our world. For example, there is the growing prevalence of HIV/AIDS to which I shall return. In sub-Saharan Africa Botswana has a 39 per cent infection rate.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, when he said that security and stability are essential for development. That includes tackling corruption, focusing on governance and creating an environment to attract investment.
	The United Kingdom has worked hard with its international partners to get the entire international development effort to focus on achieving the millennium development goals. But on current trends we will meet only two out of the 18 targets by 2015, the headline target of halving absolute poverty and the target to halve the proportion of people without access to safe water. Other targets including universal primary schooling, gender equality in schools, reductions in child and maternal mortality and combating the global HIV/AIDS epidemic will require a significant increase in effort if they are to be met.
	But achievements in individual countries with substantial reductions in income, poverty in China and India, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, demonstrate that progress can be made with the right political will and the right environment.
	My noble friend Lord Judd asked what we are doing to help to fulfil the sectoral millennium development goals. We are committed to maximising the opportunities offered by the 2005 UK presidency of the G8 and the EU to push for faster progress on development.
	We have three priorities, which are: accelerating progress towards achieving the millennium development goals, including taking forward proposals for mobilising additional finance; tackling the global HIV/AIDS epidemic; and addressing the challenges faced by Africa.
	As regards the finance facility, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the UK Government do not see the IFF as a substitute for reaching 0.7 per cent growth.
	I turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords. I begin with health and HIV/AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, spoke in particular about the 2 million who will die of tuberculosis and the 1 million from malaria. Over the past 50 years there has been enormous progress in improving global health but there remains a staggering scale of death and ill-health in developing countries. The links between health and poverty are clear. Poor people suffer greater ill health, which pushes people into poverty and they may be unable to escape. As the noble Lord made clear, poor health affects national economies and household income directly through decreased productivity and, importantly for the poorest, through significant out-of-pocket expenditure. So poor people need to be able to access good quality essential health services.
	We have committed over £l.5 billion to strengthen health systems since 1997 ensuring access to trained staff, reliable supplies of drugs and health commodities and building effective management systems to deliver and measure progress. We have played a critical role in the development of, and worked closely with, Roll-Back Malaria, Stop TB, the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation and the global initiative to eradicate polio.
	HIV/AIDS was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lady Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. We have taken a leading role over the past few years both in pushing the issue up the world agenda and in giving financial and practical help. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked specifically about the action that we will be taking. On World Aids Day last year we published our call for action, which re-emphasised our commitment to tackling the global epidemic and highlighted the need for stronger political direction, better funding, donor co-ordination and better HIV/AIDS programmes. We shall continue to offer the leadership required to get the world to focus on what we must do together because there is no individual country that can tackle the issue.
	A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Judd, Lord Dubs and Lord Rea and the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Freeman, spoke about the importance of a fair world economic system and trade. There is no doubt that Cancun was a setback. The continuing stalemate at the WTO meeting in December was a further disappointment.
	My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked how the Doha round is progressing. We are absolutely committed to getting the Doha development agenda back on track. Looking ahead to our presidencies in 2005, we will be working to create the right conditions for the WTO negotiations to resume in a constructive atmosphere and to ensure real development gains from the round. We have committed over £160 million to trade-related capacity building since 1998. The money is targeted at the existing poorer countries to develop their own policies, participate fully in the negotiating processes and seize the opportunities that arise from trade liberalisation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular pressed me on what support we are giving and have given. We contributed financial support to assist the African Union, the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group and the least developed countries to come together to discuss their common agenda for the round. At Cancun, 62 WTO members found their voice and exerted their influence by forming a new alliance.
	There is no doubt that the burden of debt has played a major role in holding countries back from development. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friends Lord Judd, Lady Jay and Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all alluded to that. We have made progress since HIPC's launch. Some 70 billion dollars debt relief has already been agreed for 27 countries, reducing their debt by two-thirds on average and freeing up resources for spending on poverty reduction.
	Our aim is that HIPC should provide poor countries with a permanent exit from unsustainable debt burdens. We have therefore been pushing for additional relief or topping up for countries which risk exiting the initiative with debts above the HIPC threshold. We are pleased that this was agreed for Burkina Faso and will continue to press to ensure that all countries with unsustainable debt receive top-ups.
	The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made an important speech underlining the need for developing countries themselves to put the right macro-economic policies in place. The noble Lord made the point that we need to increase world economic growth. I agree. We in the Department for International Development have changed our approach, which is a result of acknowledging that reality. Where partner governments demonstrate a genuine, strong commitment to poverty reduction and where circumstances are appropriate—for example, where fiduciary risks are assessed as acceptable—we are moving our development assistance away from individual projects to providing assistance directly to partner government budgets.
	Direct budget support allows us to support the implementation of a government's own poverty reduction strategy. I can assure my noble friend Lord Rea that we achieve better financial management of donor funds and the government's own funds. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that not only do we measure output, but we also measure outcomes. We need to look at the quality of life of poor people and we need to look at the way that it has changed as a result of our support.
	I could not agree more on the point about evaluations and external scrutiny. That is why the OECD peer review process and other evaluation mechanisms are so important. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and other noble Lords, about the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of our aid programmes. We have worked with the Treasury on that and, in advance of the Monterrey conference, have published a document that looks at the issue of aid effectiveness.
	Agriculture was raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. We are committed to supporting agriculture as a means of reducing poverty and achieving the millennium development goals. Achieving our goal of halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day by 2015 will need a dramatic improvement in the performance of agriculture, particularly at the small and medium-scale level.
	In response to my noble friend's particular question about the World Bank's micro-finance initiatives, we are one of the largest contributors to the World Bank. We work with the World Bank at the policy and country level to support micro-finance. Many times the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has raised the issue of education in this House. The noble Lord's concern is that the focus is on primary education. Of course, that is our focus because of the relationship between primary education achieving universal primary education and tackling poverty.
	I can say to the noble Lord that our support for the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowship Plan continues. In 2003, more than 700 awards were made at a cost of £11.7 million. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that we are also supporting, for example, the Kigali Institute of Science and Technology in Rwanda in developing science and technology courses. So there is some work that we are doing in the higher education arena.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the importance of working with NGOs. We recognise the key role that NGOs play in development and the elimination of poverty. We have ongoing debate and discussion with representatives of the NGOs. Since 1996, support for UK NGOs has increased by 32 per cent to £222 million in 2002–03. The right reverend Prelate made reference to the recent Disasters Emergency Committee report on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, and the NGOs' response to that crisis. Perhaps I may say that NGOs are to be congratulated on undertaking that evaluation and the learning that will come from it.
	On the matter of capacity building and the importance of capacity building being demand-led, raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I absolutely agree. That is why we support country-led strategies. Developing country governments are involved in the choice of any consultants that are used as part of their poverty reduction strategy processes.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt raised issues connected to the environment. The key outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development—the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation—recognises the importance of protecting and managing the natural resource base for economic and social development, and that that should be integrated into,
	"country owned poverty reduction strategies . . . which should reflect the priorities of the poor and enable them to increase access to productive resources".
	But challenges still remain. Many countries have little capacity to establish monitoring and information systems, or to develop appropriate macro-economic frameworks, or to devise suitable growth strategies. That is why DfID has identified a number of key sectoral areas in which we are giving support.
	My noble friend Lord Rea asked me specifically about Iraq; I shall come on to points made by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in relation to Iraq. Progress is being made in Iraq. Security remains a major challenge, but the coalition has launched more than 17,000 reconstruction projects of which more than 13,000 have now been completed.
	As regards financing, at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October 2003, the international community demonstrated its commitment by pledging more than 33 billion dollars in grants and concessional loans, as well as trade credits and assistance in kind. The UK's total financial commitment of £544 million for three years was announced at that meeting. While on the subject of Iraq, I should reassure my noble friend Lord Judd that the commitment to Iraq has not affected our humanitarian or our emergency programmes. I should like to make that point clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I have made this clear to noble Lords in the past. We have not diverted funds from the poorest countries or from our humanitarian emergency strategy, and our commitment to 90 per cent of our funding reaching the poorest countries by 2006 remains.
	My noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Jay were concerned that a simplistic analysis would be made in relation to terrorism, security and poverty. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was also concerned about our strategy in the Middle East. My noble friend Lord Rea was concerned about a possible connection between terrorism and poverty. The Government's approach takes on board the complexity of the issue. We want to tackle poverty and support fragile and emerging economies. But, at the same time, we are grappling with how best we can seek to influence those countries where the state has collapsed.
	I can tell the noble Earl that our strategy for the Middle East is to help governments, civil society and the private sector, across the region, to drive the economic, political and social change needed to enable progress towards achieving the millennium development goals. While we need to take a strategic approach to middle-income countries, we cannot just look at the fact that poverty exists in a country. I would remind the noble Earl that poverty exists in the United States—the richest country in the world.
	I am very conscious of time, so I shall try to move to a conclusion. The challenges facing developing countries are huge. Africa has been mentioned several times in this debate. During our presidency of the G8, we intend to focus on areas where we believe that concerted action in Africa can have real results. That includes getting more girls enrolled in primary school, where we are aiming for 70 per cent by 2005; addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic; and enhancing African peace-keeping capacity, because conflict has had a major impact on development opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa.
	My noble friend Lord Judd asked specifically about the arms trade. The Government welcome the arms trade treaty for the contribution that it makes to international debate. But if such a treaty is to have an impact we must gather support from a wider range of countries, not just those that already practise responsible policies. We are working with overseas countries to set up regional and sub-regional meetings to discuss and agree arms transfer controls.
	I have said many times in this House that despite the many challenges that continue to face us, achievement of the millennium development goals is still possible with political leadership and political will. In this Government we have that political will and we have that leadership. We will continue to work in partnership with the IFIs, with partner governments in developed and developing countries, with the NGOs and the business community to keep these issues high on the international agenda.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I sincerely thank all those who have contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend for her characteristic, thorough and detailed response. We are altogether fortunate to have the Leader of the House insisting on demonstrating her personal and ministerial commitment to the subject.
	Perhaps I may just say that this has been an important debate. There is a great deal for us to digest, such as the macro-micro dimensions, the importance of discipline within the developing countries themselves, which is absolutely essential to success, the multilateral dimensions and the rest. Many vivid points have been made. Perhaps one endearing point that will remain with all of us was that fleeting moment of the picture of the Opposition Whip with a goat in the lapel of his jacket. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Women in Sport

Lord Pendry: rose to call attention to the steps which Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage women's participation in sport; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am sure that the House realises the importance of this debate and recognises that women who participate in sport and physical recreation in this country have not always received the encouragement that they deserve from many quarters, especially the sporting media. However, before I proceed, I declare an interest as president of the Football Foundation to which I shall refer later.
	The debate calls attention to the steps that Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage women's participation in sport. I readily salute those Ministers who are responsible for making some positive moves in that direction, some of whom I shall refer to in the course of my speech. However, a great deal more needs to be done, if girls and women are to make the kind of advances necessary to catch up with other countries, such as Australia which has a female participation rate of 75 per cent in sport and physical recreation against our national average of 38 per cent. The difference is perhaps not surprising when one considers that by the age of 18, 40 per cent of girls and young women in the UK have left sport and recreation altogether.
	I am grateful that a number of noble Lords have agreed that this is a subject worthy of debate and are prepared to speak today. I have no intention of making cheap party points during my speech. This subject is far too important for that. I recognise that the shadow Minister for sport would dearly like to have been present today, but I understand that he is detained on another important sporting engagement. I welcome another Olympian, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his place.
	Having said that I had no intention of making a party point, I cannot resist stating that I am pleased that the current Opposition have moved from their position when in government, when they held a negative stance towards women in sport. I remember in my capacity as shadow Minister for sport attending the very first international women in sport conference, held in Brighton in May 1994. I raised a question from the Opposition Dispatch Box bemoaning the fact that despite the conference being hosted by Britain, with some 280 delegates from 82 countries present, including many sports ministers, we did not send one British Minister.
	I pointed out to the then Minister for Sport, Ian Sproat, that many of those present from the UK were bemused and many ashamed that there was no ministerial presence in Brighton, nor did the Government send a letter of support. I further asked the Minister whether he would at least support the Opposition by endorsing the declaration carried at that conference. In his reply the Minister stated:
	"If more women wish to involve themselves in sport I shall be very glad for them to do so, but it is up to them. I read the declaration: it was political correctness in excelsis".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/94; col. 8.]
	I hope that that view no longer prevails in the Conservative Party.
	My final shot in this political territory is to say that I found it strange that the Conservative Party sports strategy in 2000 made no reference to the importance of women in sport. I hope that that is history and that the debate will show from all sides of the House a recognition of the importance of women in sport and that we are all singing from the same song sheet. Part of that song sheet surely contains some of the points made in the Brighton declaration from which I now quote:
	"Ensure that all women and girls have the opportunity to participate in sport in a safe supportive environment which preserves the dignity and respect of the individual; increase the involvement of women in sport at all levels and functions; ensure that the knowledge, experiences and values of women contribute to the development of sport; promote the recognition of women's involvement in sport as a contribution to public life, community development and in building a healthy nation; promote the recognition by women of the intrinsic value of sport and its contribution to personal development and a healthy lifestyle".
	Who could doubt the aims of that Brighton declaration? It is a declaration aimed at developing sporting culture that enables and values the full involvement of women in every aspect of sport. I am indebted to Margaret Talbot, chief executive of CCPR, for spelling out some of the facts surrounding the lack of participation by women and girls in sport. There is certainly no evidence that girls and women are naturally less inclined towards physical activity. In the main, male participation is greater than that of women in a ratio of two to one, with a difference greater in outdoor rather than indoor activities. The gap is narrower while girls are still at school, but it quickly widens after school-leaving age. Generally, girls and women enjoy fewer opportunities in every sector, whether statutory, voluntary or commercial, and as Margaret Talbot points out, because girls of all ages enjoy fewer freedoms of activity outside the home, that further restricts their capacity to use public facilities and services.
	Girlsport is an exciting new programme from Sport England which will assist enjoyment, involvement and progress in sport and physical activity, and will no doubt be taken very seriously by the Government. The Football Foundation is another example of an organisation taking positive steps for women's sport, having invested substantial amounts of money in grass-roots women's football in communities across the UK. The foundation backs a wide variety of schemes, from promoting social inclusion in Asian women's football—a much needed niche, as any fan of the film "Bend It Like Beckham" will appreciate—to schemes such as the one in Berkshire, setting up taster sessions in girls' football across the county and devising and developing programmes to keep women in the game later in life.
	Another encouraging sign is the development of equality standards in sport, initiated by the home country sports councils in collaboration with UK Sport. The standard, which is due to be published this spring, is designed to serve as a toolkit for social inclusion, aimed not only at reducing discrimination but at pro-actively promoting inclusion and greater participation.
	I also welcome such initiatives as the Girls in Sport Partnership being run by the Youth Sport Trust in conjunction with Nike. The project is concerned with developing girl-friendly forms of PE and school sport to increase physical activity levels and to encourage positive attitudes towards participation.
	So far some 2,000 secondary schools have taken part in the programme and the project is producing some interesting research related to young girls' attitudes to sports. Such research could be used as a basis for reforming the culture of school sports with respect to young girls across the board and the Government will, I am sure, take note of those developments.
	Another positive development by the Government, following pressure from noble Lords during the course of the Local Government Bill, was a mandatory tax relief of 80 per cent for all community amateur sports clubs, a development that was warmly welcomed by all the key sports providers and which will help to narrow the participation gap.
	With measures such as that, the Government, with sporting organisations, are clearly making an attempt to bridge the gap. However, if we are to make the progress necessary to bridge the participation gap, we need the sporting media in this country to recognise equally the contribution of women's sport. Very few high-profile female role models exist in comparison with men's sport because the sporting media has failed to recognise them. That is not to say that a female sporting elite does not exist. The role models are out there, but with the exception of a handful of sportswomen, the media chooses to ignore them. The Women's Sport Foundation reveals that only 2.65 per cent of daily newspapers cover women's sport.
	Another study of gender portrayal was undertaken in the 1994 Olympics, which found that women received only 26 per cent of television coverage, despite the fact that the games reflected 41 per cent of broadcast time going to females.
	On the rare occasions when the media spotlight falls on women's sport, the coverage produced is often negative—affirming unrealistic gender stereotypes. For example, the Women's Sport Foundation found that coverage of women's sport rarely showed action shots. Instead, details of women's personal lives were often included inappropriately.
	A study undertaken by the Southampton Institute in 2002 found that of the coverage of women's sport that exists, one third of it is dedicated to Anna Kournikova. One only has to search Google.co.uk to view the vast number of websites devoted to the tennis star, the majority of which make little reference to her sporting attributes.
	Such representation of female sporting professionals confuses and distracts from the message that such women are as fit, strong and highly skilled as their male counterparts. It ignores the very reason why they have risen to the top of their game.
	That representation is perpetuated by the sports media. Tabloid newspapers are without doubt the worst offenders. One tabloid sports editor has been quoted as saying that for women's football to receive more space in his newspaper, a female international would have to have an affair with Sven-Goran Eriksson. The belief that for sportswomen to gain greater visibility in the media, they must be physically attractive, not only misses the point of women's sport, but is also untrue.
	Many elite sportswomen—I cannot quite hear what my noble friend Lord Faulkner, is saying, but he will perhaps repeat it when he speaks later. Many elite sportswomen, such as the England Ladies Cricket captain, Claire Connor, and Arsenal captain, Faye White, to name but two, are both feminine and attractive, but they still fail to get the media coverage that they deserve as athletes performing at the top of their game.
	The media need to be encouraged to celebrate our female sporting elite, and to recognise their sporting achievements as athletes, to raise the profile of women's sport and its role in society. The recently relaunched Women's Sport Foundation is doing some sterling work and has published a report, called, "Britain's best kept secrets". It argues that the wide gap that already exists between men's and women's participation in sports will never be closed if the inequality of sports reporting continues.
	Why does it matter that so few women are actively involved in sport? Why should we be concerned that the national average participation rate for women is only 38 per cent? We ignore such disparity at our peril. It may hold the key to improving the health of half of the nation. For example, women generally live longer than men and face a greater risk of osteoporosis than men. Weight-bearing exercise can help to prevent this condition, and the Government need to take better advantage of that.
	In addition to that risk, women now face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease owing to changes in lifestyle. Statistics show that half as many women as men undertake sufficient physical activity to reduce that risk, which is a missed opportunity from a preventive health perspective, and a further burden on our health system.
	The economic case for increased female participation does not end there. Women are twice as likely to be obese as men, and regular exercise is known to be one of the most effective ways to treat the condition. Is it any wonder that women are more likely to be obese than men, when we consider that between the ages of seven and 11, girls are half as likely as boys to take part in physical activity and sport? The Government must recognise that relationship to exploit fully the health benefits of sport for women.
	The chief medical officer will shortly publish a report on physical activity in the UK, and is expected to document the relationship between physical activity and health. That is an encouraging step in the right direction, and will add more value to the arguments for increased female participation in physical activity. Despite the many obstacles confronting girls and women in sport, I believe that the future looks brighter. I hope that the debate will be read and understood by the powers that be, and that that brighter future becomes a reality. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for leading the debate and putting the Motion before the House.
	I confess that it is a slightly mysterious Motion in that we are supposed to be debating the steps that the Government are already taking to encourage women's participation in sport. But it is more the steps that they are not taking that we should be debating. I suspect, as I do increasingly, that too much of our time is spent talking about what the Government are or are not doing, when we should be talking about what we as citizens are doing for ourselves.
	I note that of the working parties to look into the deep problem of social exclusion that the Prime Minister set up when he came to office, the one which perhaps produced the most telling report, and around which all the others revolve, was that dealing with the importance of self-help in our society. Self-help is the essential, irreplaceable engine of any sort of improvement, particularly vis-a-vis social exclusion. The one thing that is often forgotten—and which was forgotten in some of those reports—is that we already have about 100,000 unsung community amateur sports clubs. Without question, they are the most important single element in creating a good society. By a good society, I mean a healthy society with a sense of communality, involving self-help, team work and all the other virtues that we associate with amateur sports.
	We should note, however, that that number is reducing—rather fast in some sports. It is worth addressing the causes of that both tonight and hereafter. To be fair to the Government, a good deal of consideration is being given to that problem. One of the most obvious and deep aspects of the decline in community amateur sports clubs is the decline in community life as such. There is a profound problem of disintegration or dissolution of community life. There is increasing individualisation in life that too often leads to a reduced input by our fellow citizens—particularly by leading citizens—into civic and community life.
	Sports clubs have a unique role to play in dealing with that problem because they reach out to people and parts that other organisations fail to reach. Fortunately, for young men, participation in sports, especially team sports, is a passion that escapes few of them. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, made clear, it escapes too many women. He pointed out that two men engage in amateur sports for every one woman. I believe that the statistics for ethnic minority groups are even worse, by a factor of two to one. That is a huge challenge. I do not think that any noble Lord believes that men have any greater right to benefit from sport than do women.
	The first point I want to raise in the time available concerns over-regulation. We see during every working day in this place a culture that is tempted to use regulation to deal with every perceived inadequacy. In the realms of sport, in particular amateur sport, I strongly urge that we resist that temptation and adopt any and every other means of achieving what we want. For example, a head of steam is now building to legislate in respect of sports coaching. I would be powerfully hostile to that. Many small sports clubs are hanging on by only a thin thread and nothing should be done to incline more of them to close.
	I turn now to work-life balance, about which there is obviously great concern in society at large. The Government have made it an objective to try to restore the work-life balance. Surely there is no better way of doing that than through the reinvigoration of community amateur sports clubs. However, it would be churlish of me not to make the point that last year the Government introduced for tax purposes the new category of "community amateur sports clubs". I do not doubt that that will have a major impact on the infusion of funds from individuals at the grassroots level into the sporting world and community amateur sports clubs. The Government took an important strategic decision and we are grateful for it.
	I shall refer briefly to the links between schools, sports clubs and local authorities. If there is scope for government funding that would yield a large dividend, I think that it lies here. I am told by those working at the coal face that, too often, seriously inadequate links are established between schools—hard-pressed, with inadequate sports facilities and too little time for sports, along with often recalcitrant pupils—and sports clubs, many of which, if given a prod, would willingly make available their facilities, coaching services and so forth. Local authorities also have a major role to play.
	I want to draw attention to a point on which I have received valuable input from a charity based in Hoxton called the Sky Partnership, as well as from a young charity called the Greenhouse Schools Project: the problem of adolescent and post-adolescent girls and young women who, I am told, find it particularly difficult to engage in sports. They often come from homes with no tradition of participation in sporting activities, and again that problem is most acute among certain ethnic groups. They have no role models to relate to, while a preoccupation with their sexual allure and relationships with the opposite sex often leads to an extremely low level of interest in engaging in sport. Add to that the problems faced by some Muslim groups—anxieties about changing facilities and chaperoning in the context of sport—then we must try to meet a major challenge. Again, this is a challenge not only for the Government, but also for sports clubs and local authorities.
	The Greenhouse Schools Project has found that even where it has encouraged private and independent schools to make available their facilities at the weekend—pitches, gymnasia and swimming pools—it is difficult to persuade young women from some of the inner London comprehensive schools to take advantage of those facilities. That underlines the point.
	I should like to see the role and profile of women elevated in the sports world—that is, the sports associations and quangos—along with a much stronger attempt to lure women into sports coaching. I also suggest that particular attention is paid to the needs of girls and women in every government or quango programme and project. The briefing distributed to some noble Lords by the Central Council of Physical Recreation makes it clear that there is a real shortfall.
	I close by repeating the obvious: community amateur sports provide the great melting-pot of our society, embracing all ages, types, backgrounds and temperaments. All are equal in sports clubs. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for initiating the debate.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Pendry has secured this debate. On many occasions he and other noble Lords here today have shown dedication to promoting sport for all. I want also to express my thanks to the several organisations for women's sport which have been so helpful in providing me with information, in particular the women's branch of the England Cricket Board.
	I shall discuss the importance of involving women in sport from a young age, for reasons of health as well as fitness. I shall emphasise the importance of securing funding for sport, the need for organisation in sport and the vital importance of enthusiasm for sport within schools, communities and sports bodies. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, this is not just a government issue. I shall illustrate these aspects by focusing on women's cricket, as an example. I shall also briefly mention another aspect of women in sport by talking about the work of the Lady Taverners.
	First: catching them young. Evidence shows that women aged 40-plus are using public sports facilities such as gyms with enthusiasm. It may be that such facilities are women-friendly and that at this age women have more opportunity to engage in sport since they have fewer childcare responsibilities. Many systems of sport at a younger age are not women-friendly, being geared to male aptitudes and tastes. Generally, young women and girls have less time to participate in sport and have fewer role models. Nevertheless, participation in sport by women is increasing and, interestingly, in non-traditional sports for women such as cricket and football.
	Perhaps women are recognising the benefits to health of exercise. Exercise can improve physical well-being and decrease the likelihood of stroke, heart attack and the onset of osteoporosis, referred to by my noble friend Lord Pendry. I know that the media are under attack for their portrayal—or lack of portrayal—of women in sport, but I have to say that media messages about health and exercise are coming across very powerfully. Research indicates that young women who take part in regular physical activities develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence, and are less likely to become smokers or take drugs.
	So, we need to foster exercise at a young age, overcome stereotyping and make systems work to encourage the participation of girls and women in sport by making that participation easy.
	As I have said, that demands funding, organisation and enthusiasm. Of course, encouraging sport for all young people, boys and girls, is important, and sport needs to be made easy to access and enjoyable. Much is happening in education. Enthusiastic teachers have adopted exciting approaches. In schools, Kwik cricket and board games such as "Owzat" encourage greater understanding of and enthusiasm for the game.
	I turn now to my example of organisation and enthusiasm. Women's cricket has recognised the need to change systems which, in turn, increases opportunities for girls and women to play the sport. The club league structure has changed. Seventeen counties now organise their own league clubs. That has cut down the costs of time and travel and encouraged more girls to participate in club cricket. There are now three regional leagues. There are competitions such as the Lady Taverners, which seeks to encourage maximum participation and develop beginners. That is played with a soft ball and eight players a side. Last year, 30 counties entered club competition, with 1,500 girls participating in the under-13s and under-15s national competition.
	There has been a 26 per cent increase in counties entering teams for competition at various age groups since 2000. The majority of players are picked by selectors, but counties can also send players to an assessment day. Standards have risen steadily, perhaps because of that collaborative approach. Three hundred and forty-seven women's clubs are now registered with the England Cricket Board—an increase of 30 per cent on 2002. That is an extraordinary result.
	The cricket development squad, fed from the regional squad, has three players funded by the national lottery. All three were part of the under-19 side that successfully toured Australia last winter. Such squads and their participation in international competition help to bridge the gap between county and England cricket. That happens with planning, work and commitment from the counties.
	The scheme, Women Into High-Performance Coaching, set up in 2001, exists to fast-track talented female coaches and to give them the opportunity to coach excellent players, rather than relying on male coaches, who, as we know, dominate the sporting world.
	Women's county cricket development officers contribute to enhancing opportunities. They help clubs to look for funding; they help clubs to link into the county structure; they work on accreditation; they encourage pathways for young players to join clubs. Such effort has resulted in a 300 per cent increase in junior women's cricket and nearly a 100 per cent increase in adult clubs.
	I have summarised the pyramid of organisation and structure which has gone into developing women's cricket and encouraging young women to take up the game. It is appropriately called "the pathway from playground to test arena". It has resulted in better coaching, better communication and better administration.
	There are now 24 lottery-funded players in the England squad, which has an international programme. It will visit New Zealand this summer; take part in the World Cup in South Africa in 2004–05; tour Australia in 2005 and India after that. The under-19s toured Australia in 2003 and, playing in the under-19 national state tournament, won all six state matches comfortably. England players won awards for bowler and batsman of the tournament. Organisation, structure and enthusiasm do pay off.
	I shall comment briefly on another aspect of women in sport; that is, in raising funds to enable young people to take up sport. As I have said, I shall speak about the Lady Taverners, in which I declare an interest as a member. The Lady Taverners came into being because of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Traditionally, each Prime Minister is a member of the Lord's Taverners. The all-male club therefore had a problem with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the Lady Taverners was set up. Very dynamic it is too. The situation would perhaps be different now, just as the MCC now has women members.
	The Lady Taverners has 980 members and 19 regions. It organises regular fundraising events and aims to give young people, particularly those with special needs, a sporting chance. In 2003, it raised more than £730,000.
	During 2003, it provided 22 minibuses and major grants to two special needs schools for a soft playroom and playground equipment. Through the wheelchair sponsorship scheme, 11 grants have been made by the Lady Taverners, totalling more than £12,000. Individual awards to young people with disabilities are also made; for example, to Mickey Bushell, who was born with seven vertebrae missing and no spinal cord. Mickey is now the national under-15 Disability Sport England wheelchair racing champion, thanks to many grants from the Lady Taverners.
	Women are making an increasing contribution to making sport popular and accessible—as participants, as supporters and as fundraisers. Fundraising is all very well and a good social activity in itself, but it is not enough to maintain sport on its own. I know that the women's under-19 cricket team, for example, is not able to tour for a while because of a lack of cash. I therefore ask the Minister which government funding schemes specifically target women's sport and sport for the disabled.
	The organisation of women's sport is improving, as I have described through the example of women's cricket. Enthusiasm is there. Funding for sport in general has increased. What are the Government doing to encourage more women into sport? I know that all of us here tonight would welcome a positive response.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Pendry on securing this debate. Britain needs more people taking part in sports at all levels. It especially needs more young people taking part in competitive sports, particularly more girls and women.
	London's bid for the Olympic Games in 2012 offers a golden opportunity to encourage young athletes from around the UK to get into sport on a regular basis and literally to go for gold. There is only one winner in an Olympic bid, but there are no losers. The city of Birmingham found that in the 1980s when it submitted a bid. As part of that, the city encouraged its elite athletes and leading clubs to go into schools to build up public support. I hope that similar schemes will be seen across the United Kingdom in connection with the London bid.
	If more girls and young women are to be encouraged to take part in competitive sports and physical activities, role models are needed. That is where the media has an important part to play.
	The triple jump champion, Ashia Hansen, whom I was proud to have as constituent in my former parliamentary constituency in Birmingham, underlined that point when she said:
	"Growing up I had some really strong female role models to look up to from within my sport. I hope now that I can help others by being a role model and I welcome what the Women's Sports Foundation is trying to achieve. All young female athletes should have the opportunity to look up to the stars in their own sports to encourage and motivate them".
	She was referring to the campaign by the Women's Sports Foundation to give more publicity to women's sport. In its report, appropriately called Britain's Best Kept Secrets, published last November, it found,
	"not only is the overall level of coverage poor, a substantial proportion of it is derogatory or focused excessively on the sportswoman's physical appearance, personal life or lifestyle".
	It concluded,
	"the lack of focus on a sportswoman's athleticism, skill and achievements within sports reporting, in turn further undermines the status of women in sport".
	The report also stated:
	"Women are under-represented in all aspects of sports news production including sports journalism, sports photography and sports broadcasting and presenting".
	It was the case in July last year—I have reason to believe that it is still the case—that not a single daily newspaper in England, Scotland or Wales had a female sports editor.
	Serious issues about social exclusion arise. The gap in participation between women from poorer backgrounds and those from better-off homes is greater than that between middle-class men and women. Although more women are involved in sport and physical activity than was the case 15 years ago, the number and percentage of women taking part lag behind men's involvement. Television time for sport has expanded hugely, yet women in sport receive the same tiny share of coverage as they did a few years ago. The Women's Sports Foundation found in 2000 that women's sport received just 2.3 per cent of the total coverage of tabloid newspapers. While 1,564 photographs of sportsmen were published, there were just 36 of women. A repeat survey last year showed that coverage was 2.65 per cent, despite the success of Ashia Hansen and the other women athletes who set a string of new records at the World Indoor Athletics Championships in—yes, you have guessed it—the National Indoor Arena in the city of Birmingham last March.
	I endorse the remarks of Deborah Potts, the chief executive of the Women's Sports Foundation, who said that the renewal of the BBC charter in 2006 should include sport within its commitment to balanced and representative public broadcasting to help to ensure more adequate coverage of women athletes.
	This should also apply to all TV channels, which should feel some responsibility not only to show sport but—as they have done in the past but seem to do so little of now—to try to encourage interest in new and different sports. They should try to build audiences in that way rather than simply responding to the lads' games where the money is, such as football and rugby.
	There is a real challenge here for the media: do not simply clear your front pages and screens to celebrate the success of women in sport when the medals are hung around their necks; help to encourage and build heroes by better reflecting the commitment, dedication and sacrifice that lies behind all the elite sporting achievements of women.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing the debate and I congratulate him on his splendid speech. I am conscious that the list of speakers contains a number of distinguished sportsmen and women. I am afraid that I cannot claim any great fame as an athlete but your Lordships will know that I have over many years taken an interest in sporting issues. I have made, I hope, a modest contribution to the cause of women's sport in an administrative and office-holding capacity and, indeed, as a Member of the House.
	Two years ago I successfully steered a Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House which would have extended the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act to private sports clubs which offer membership and facilities to men and women on unequal terms. Despite a number of declarations of support for my Bill from my noble friends on the Government Front Bench and the backing of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Bill sadly suffered the fate of virtually all Private Members' Bills which originate in this House and died a death in the other place.
	During the Bill's passage I was able to share with the House a number of horror stories about how women were treated at various golf and bowling clubs. I referred to the survey of social attitudes published by Golf World magazine. The findings, as reported in the Independent on Sunday, were that golf clubs were,
	"the final bastions of British snobbery, discrimination and prejudice".
	Nearly one-quarter of British clubs were found to be preventing women from becoming elected captains and more than two-thirds operated under rules that discriminate against 140,000 regular women golfers. Half the clubs admitted that men and women were charged different fees for full membership and that there was a restriction on the hours that women can play.
	A couple of years earlier, a survey in Women in Golf magazine showed that only 56 per cent of women could stand for election to the main committee; 21 per cent had men-only access in parts of the clubs; and 35 per cent did not provide women with full voting rights.
	It is particularly regrettable that five courses approved by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club as venues for the Open are all male clubs. It is deplorable that the sports Minister was effectively told to get lost 18 months ago when he rightly complained about the 2002 Open being held at Muirfield.
	During the passage of my Bill, I was sent many examples of some of the practices followed. There was a golf club in the Midlands where a white line was painted across the floor of the bar to mark the territory that women could not enter. A famous club in the north of England imposed a 30 per cent levy on subscriptions for men and women members alike but first denied women any vote on whether the levy should be raised and applied to them.
	I have no reason to suppose that the situation has changed markedly from that described by Tim Howland, the chief executive of the Ladies' European tour, who was quoted in the March 2001 edition of Golf World as saying,
	"It's mainly men who laugh about signs like 'No dogs, no women'. It's not something that women find funny. This sort of behaviour doesn't happen on the continent, only in Britain, and it's a sad indictment of how golf treats women and children".
	As a number of my noble friends have said, the situation for women's participation and treatment in sport would be better if media coverage were improved. There is certainly more sport on television than ever before, but it is overwhelmingly men's sport, particularly football, that dominates.
	My noble friend referred to the efforts of the chief executive of the Women's Sports Foundation to have a new clause relating to women's sport inserted into the BBC charter. He may be interested to see the BBC sports calendar for 2004, which arrived on my desk yesterday. On the front cover there are five different sports depicted—not one of them shows a woman participant. Inside there are a further 21 photographs, and women appear in only three of them.
	The media have a huge part to play in raising the profile of women's sport, highlighting role models and encouraging participation. As other speakers have said, the WSF has done sterling work in monitoring the national press, particularly the tabloid press. A statistic to come out of its conference at the Oval in November was that on average there were 10 days a month in the print media when women's sport received no coverage whatever. This lack of media interest results in poorer levels of sponsorship and means that there are fewer high profile role models for young women and sportswomen of the future.
	Part of the problem, I suspect, lies with the language that we all use. We often under-estimate how we can alienate or discriminate against individuals and groups by the use of inappropriate language. By the use of language inclusive of women, we can subtly but powerfully shift the perception that women's sports are add-ons, auxiliaries or less important than men's sports towards the notion that they are important in their own right.
	We have moved on a little from where we were a few years ago, as the Women's Sport Foundation admits in its fact file on Women, Sport and the Media. It is not so long ago that tabloid writers were more interested in whether women soccer players would swap shirts at the end of a match than in reporting the game. I thought that football had made real progress until I read the extraordinary comments of Mr Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, which were reported in the Guardian last week. He was reported as suggesting that female players wear tighter shorts to promote "a more female aesthetic". He said that the game's popularity would improve if they play in,
	"more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball".
	He continued:
	"They could for example have tighter shorts. Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so"—
	well, no, Mr Blatter, I do not—
	"and they already have some different rules to men, such as playing with a lighter ball".
	The Guardian report then contained a series of robust quotes from some excellent women footballers from around the world. The England goalkeeper, Pauline Cope, said the comments were,
	"typical of a bloke. We don't use a lighter ball, and to say that we should play in hotpants is plainly ridiculous".
	What makes Mr Blatter's comments so unfortunate is that they fly in the face of the excellent progress the Football Association has made in recent years to develop women's and girls' football. The FA has a five-year programme to develop opportunities for girls to play, to encourage and foster excellence as well as developing coaches. Four years into it, participation in women's and girls' football in England has grown from 960 to 4,800 affiliated clubs and the number of players from 11,000 to 61,667. Football has now taken over from netball as the most popular women's sport. We have a long way to go, however, before we reach the levels of participation seen in women's football in the United States where there are 7 million female players.
	Finally, I should like to express my support for the UK strategy for women in sport which has been co-ordinated by UK Sport and the WSF, with involvement from other agencies. This aims to achieve a measurable impact for women as participants, leaders and elite performers by 2006. I suspect that we are some way off from introducing legislation of the kind which has had such a powerful impact in the United States: that is, Title IX of the US Educational Amendments of 1972. This is the landmark legislation which bans sex discrimination in schools in both academics and athletics. It states:
	"No person in the US shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any educational programme or activity receiving federal aid".
	That means that for every dollar spent on boys' sport, exactly the same has to be spent on that for girls. It is widely believed throughout the US that it is this legislation which has been responsible for the huge growth in high school sport for girls in the country. Before Title IX, only 16,000 women played college sports; now 160,000 compete at college level.
	Women's soccer is more popular than the men's and the full-time players earn salaries that, while not approaching European levels, are substantially more than those of other professional sports people. In a sense, Mia Hamm, the icon of American soccer, is the female David Beckham and earns substantial fees as a player and through sponsorship. In a range of sports—soccer, basketball and volleyball—being a professional woman player is a US reality and not just a dream.
	I have not the slightest doubt that if we had similar legislation in this country, the prospects for girls' and women's sports generally would be transformed. It would be good to think that this could become an aspiration for us, too. I hope that we are making progress. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, the subject of tonight's debate could not be more timely. I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing it.
	The combination of the state's health and the participation in sport make daily headlines on the front and back pages of our newspapers. No newspaper bulletin on TV or radio is complete without reference to obesity, marauding youths on our streets, or the inability of Britain to produce a Wimbledon champion. Tonight's debate gives us the opportunity to analyse reasons why women in particular are failing to make active participation in sport a key part of their lives. We can look at the barriers, the turn-offs, and the basic lack of confidence and opportunities presented to them.
	I hope briefly in the time allotted to me to flag up what I see as the major obstacles with some suggestions for remedy. However, I intend to devote the bulk of my speech to an area which I believe is causing huge damage to sport right across the spectrum. That issue is planning.
	A quick jog round the basic facts dealing specifically with women and sport throws up the following headlines. Only half as many women as men take part in any sport and they have a much narrower range of sport available to them. The media are almost "woman blind" when reporting sport. Just over 2 per cent of daily newspaper coverage is dedicated to women's sport. Obesity is a hot issue from tabloid press to the World Health Organisation and the debate is heated. There are huge employment opportunities in sport but women play only a marginal part. Sport, by and large, is run by men for men. School sport is a vexed question. We have a whole generation of young women who were deprived of extra-curricular activities while at school, never getting a fair start into the world of active sport.
	In answer to those headlines, we do see some progress. There is greater awareness of the need for encouragement for women and, indeed, for sporting heroines to galvanise them into action. Obesity, with the critical equation of diet and exercise, is very much a "woman area". Women take the lead with their families and must be encouraged to delve further.
	As for school sport, there has been some progress. The Government's initiative on school sports, the New Opportunities Fund, after school clubs, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned, financial concessions to community amateur sports clubs whose obligation is to be the bridge between school and adult sport are central to those incentives. Marvellous organisations, such as the Women's Sports Foundation, the newly revitalised Sport England, and the ever vigilant and energising CCPR are all pulling together to improve our current situation. I have some optimism but, as someone said in a previous decade, "Baby, we've sure come a long way, but we've sure got a long way to go".
	I turn to the area that I believe can unlock the gates for women taking up and continuing in sport at every age and stage of life. I speak as one who plays tennis at least three times a week and, sadly, will not see 39 again. Sports clubs play a vital role in promoting their sport through a coaching programme, informal and competitive play and providing a "village" where families and friends can meet and play together. However, clubs tend to be located in areas of suburban housing where they have been a community resource for decades, pre-dating any neighbours who overlook them or live near them.
	In our clubs we expect first-class playing areas with the opportunity to use the facilities to the maximum and at times convenient to us. To gain participation for 12 months of the year we probably need some indoor facilities—a bubble, an indoor play area. Clubs should also have excellent social and changing facilities with designated areas for young children, and a dynamic coaching system to train our beginners into champions if they have the potential but to improve all of us however young or old. A bar is an asset, as is a catering facility.
	That is not too much to ask in my opinion. But just try to obtain planning permission to upgrade your local club and you will soon discover the uphill struggle you face. Initial objections often come from local residents. Their motives are clear and, by co-opting the support of their local councillor, they can thwart the upgrading time and again. The statistics for refusal are dire. In many cases not only the local residents but the local planners take a negative view, quoting noise, increased traffic and light pollution as justification.
	The syndrome of almost blanket refusal has an additional unseen effect. Many clubs do not even bother to apply. It is a lengthy, probably expensive, process and clubs do not have the human or financial resources. So I am sure the situation is even more dire than the current statistics show.
	What am I asking for? I ask for fairness, justice and common-sense outcomes. Currently the cards are firmly stacked against the clubs. We need a proper balance for the long-lasting success of those clubs. I do not ask for the removal of local democracy, but PPG17 should be strengthened. Surely it would be fair to strengthen the guidelines for planners. It should be implicit and expected that clubs should have reasonable planning applications viewed objectively.
	Perhaps I may give the House an up-to-the-minute example. In a short interview with Ace, the tennis magazine, I mentioned my concern about planning refusals. The response was electric. Clubs all over Britain wrote to me with their individual tales of woe. I decided to speak to governing bodies other than tennis. I found identical problems. Bowls, cricket, rugby, hockey and athletics had all suffered from planning rejections. In my research, I have been greatly helped by the LTA, Sport England and the CCPR, all of which are alarmed at the prospect of clubs in decline with some even closing down.
	When I went to my pigeonhole on Tuesday, by chance I found a pink slip asking me to make a phone call. I have a perfect illustration of what is happening today. Milford Tennis Club in Hampshire has seven courts, a squash and table tennis section and 600 members of all ages. Its court surfaces were upgraded recently with a loan from the LTA. Now it wants floodlights. It applied with the proviso of switching off the lights at 9.30. Imagine the club's dismay when, without consultation, the New Forest District Council turned down the application on the grounds of light pollution and increased use. No local residents objected. The secretary, Mrs Nicholls, asks: "How can the planning authority take such a negative view?". The floodlight specifications were recommended by the LTA's technical officer. Anyone who has seen modern floodlighting knows that spillage and pollution of lights is almost non-existent. Regarding the extended use, Mrs Nicholls said:
	"surely that's the objective. We're trying to fight the couch potato syndrome".
	She added:
	"without modernising our facilities, the very life-blood of this club could flow away".
	She concluded:
	"Is anyone out there listening?".
	Of course, I sought her permission to quote her tonight. I salute her and the thousands like her—volunteers trying to promote healthy sport, take the kids off the street and give their communities the joy and pleasure of active sport.
	The answer to her final question, is, I believe, "yes, we are". I hope that when the Minister replies, he will take us forward. The last thing we want is for potential sports women to turn to easier, more attractive alternatives to sport as we understand it. Keep fit, gymnasia, exercise classes are splendid, but not a replacement for sport. They can go hand-in-hand, but they are not substitutes.
	Finally, let us not forget that sport is fun. Women play a crucial role in our sporting future. The surest way for a child to be sporting is for it to have a sporting mother. Let us give our clubs the support that they richly deserve, to be more women and family-friendly, to provide a fundamental building block for the sporting health of our nation.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing the debate. He and I share a footballing interest, as he has been chairman and is now president of the Football Foundation, a successor body to the Football Trust, whose funds came from contributions from the pools companies. He is president of the Liverpool County FA, while I am chairman of the Liverpool County FA's Local Football Partnership. I shall speak from that standpoint, bearing in mind that football is our national and most prominent sport.
	I am also a trustee of the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which is funded by Littlewoods and Vernons to some £9 million annually, to encourage greater participation and enjoyment of sport and the arts, especially at grass roots level. Among our fellow trustees was Rebecca Stephens, who was the first British woman to scale Mount Everest. Included in both the Liverpool LFP's constitution and the FSA's trust deed is a requirement that whoever we support must have an open membership and allow, as far as possible, community access to facilities.
	On the face of it, women's participation in sport would appear to be up to them. However, there are constant and huge constraints and impediments—including those that are sociological—that mean women are far from able to access and enjoy sport to the same extent as men.
	Football is the top female participation sport in England, with 85,000 Football Association-affiliated players at 11-a-side level in 2002–03. In August 2002 there were 4,800 11-a-side girls' teams aged 16 and under—a doubling since the year before and compared with 80 teams in August 1993. The figure of 85,000 is a 38 per cent increase on the previous year. Ten years ago there were only 11,000 players. Girls' football is booming in England. Last season football became the top female sport in England, showing how investment at grass roots level and the promotion of female role models in the media can have a marked effect on promoting a healthy lifestyle in young women.
	The Government need to encourage more investment into girls' sports to counteract the health problems that women suffer from today. Playing sport is a key part of a healthier lifestyle and gives women the confidence to make their own choices. A healthier lifestyle will combat health issues, anti-social behaviour and teenage pregnancy as well as helping sufferers from obesity and diabetes. The £5 million lottery funding given through Sport England's active sports girls' football campaign has been instrumental over the past three years in making the present participation figures a reality.
	The FA recently signed its first major sponsor for women in 2002—the Nationwide building society—in a multi-million pound four-year deal and has won its bid to host the 2005 UEFA European Women's Championship Finals, which will be hosted mainly in the north-west. The FA is working on them with local government offices, Sport England, the regional development agency, city councils, UK Sport and professional men's clubs, to drive participation in women's sport in the community. A terrestrial TV platform would help to drive awareness of women's sport, elevate the promotion of female sporting role models for young women and drive participation.
	The FA Women's Cup Final is the only live women's football broadcast on terrestrial television each year. There are four internationals on Sky Sports. The first final, shown live on BBC 1 in 2002, attracted 2.5 million viewers, compared with 6 million for the men's FA Cup Final that year. A hotline number, read out live on air in BBC 1's coverage in 2003, resulted in over 200 calls to find out how girls could start playing football for their local football clubs—a direct link between showcasing women's sport and encouraging a healthy lifestyle for young women. Research conducted for the FA has shown that 1.4 million girls are taking part in some sort of regular football activity.
	The FA's local football partnerships bring together local key stakeholders in football to develop an inclusive committed partnership to form "one plan for football" and determine the local priorities. Liverpool's LFP brings together representatives from the local authorities who have jurisdiction over many of the facilities, Sport England, Football in the Community, Merseyside Sport, English Merseyside Schools Association, women and girls' football and Liverpool FA, to help to draw up and implement the county's facility and development plans in conjunction with the regional sports board. The FA has allocated £280 million nationally over four years, 2003–06, to be spent through the local football partnerships on grass roots development. Liverpool LFP's allocation in that regard is £8.2 million, of which £5.8 million will come from the Football Foundation, with matched funding for the remaining £2.4 million—a 65.5 per cent rate. A key objective is promoting the women's game, to which there are elements in most applications for funding. For example, £70,000 is funding the Nugent House project in St Helens, which will provide segregated changing facilities and improved amenities, with a safe playing and training environment.
	The FA has already set up within women's football a clear pathway pyramid to mirror the structure of men's football. Merseyside has two Premiership League clubs—Everton and Tranmere Rovers—with Liverpool FC Ladies being in their historically customary Division One status. However, that is where the similarity ends, with the discrepancies immediately being highlighted in coaching facilities, education, media coverage and image. Indeed, women's football is entirely amateur. There are 30 clubs on Merseyside and each club may have up to 11 teams. Charter standards will help to put pressure on clubs to develop more coaches, but they need to be female. Probably only four clubs have a female within their environment. There needs to be a clear pathway for women to develop their coaching and managing skills; and courses should be developed around the women's game as well as the men's. At the top level of the women's game the players have to rely on male coaches. There are only seven females in the country will Level 4 coaching qualifications, which are principally set up for the professional game. Hope Powell is on her own, having attained professional licence standard and has to manage the England national team as well as the youth teams under-15, under-17 and under-19; yet the success achieved is something that the men's team would strive to attain. Liverpool County's women's development officer, Mo Marley, coaches the under-19 England team. She tells me that that team has reached the semi-finals in the past two European ladies' championships.
	The development of women's and girls' soccer puts extra stress on already overstretched facilities. Everton Ladies find it difficult to access floodlit pitches. Access to indoor facilities for girls is not only limited but poses a huge cost to limited resources. At local level there is limited provision of female changing rooms and nothing at all for female officials. In education the tradition has often been that male teachers take the boys and women teachers are "not capable". Merseyside Schools FA has a competition for girls' teams, but unfortunately the drop-out rate has increased due to the lack of teacher support. It is now a major priority to keep up with the explosion in female participation.
	Many noble Lords have highlighted a discrepancy in media coverage. In Liverpool there is a 10-minute weekly slot on BBC Merseyside dedicated to women's and girls' football—next to nothing compared with the men's coverage, yet like gold dust to them and probably 10 minutes more than that provided to most county FAs. In the past 12 months, Mo Marley has been involved in the Women's Premier League, the FA Cup, the European Championships and the World Cup quarter-finals at under-19 England level, and yet the media have expressed no interest. As we know, however, last week Sepp Blatter suddenly made a comment and four different media companies immediately contacted Mo Marley for a comment. We need to change their views—that bias towards men-only sport and the image of women's football.
	Women's football is developing at a tremendous rate and Merseyside is probably at the forefront. Women's football needs to be seen as sport in its own right and addressed with the same professionalism as that accorded to the men's game. Women footballers share the same professionalism in their approach while often holding down full-time jobs. As with most people in full-time jobs, a sports injury would entail a period off work. I am sure that that position is replicated in other female sports. I expect that with money coming into football and the development at grassroots level, football can lead the way in improving facilities in conjunction with local authorities, schools and the regional sports board, which can then be expanded to the benefit of all other sports and include women on an equal basis.

Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, albeit briefly. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on securing the debate. I was glad to hear from him and from others of the initiatives being taken to encourage more women to participate in sport.
	One noble Lord mentioned the difficulties and the many disincentives which women, particularly working mothers, must try to overcome to play a greater part in sport. Those who come from a sporting family, as I fortunately do, are at a great advantage. My father and nephew played rugby for Scotland—at different times, obviously; my mother played hockey and tennis at school; and at various stages at school and beyond I was able to play netball, hockey, tennis, squash and golf. Sporting parents are great role models for their children, both male and female. I believe that the only way that we can gain maximum participation in sport is to start at the beginning, in pre-schools, schools and clubs. The great sin of past decades was the sale of so many playing fields for development purposes. To leave schools, particularly large comprehensives, with no playing fields and with what often seems a postage stamp for a playground is a national disgrace.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said that fundraising on its own is not enough. I agree. I believe that the departments for health, education and housing should contribute significantly to the sporting budget. I do not have time to explain why I have included housing in that. However, I should like to see the school day extended by one or two hours to allow pupils to be involved in physical activity including dancing. I am thinking particularly of Scottish country dancing because those who take part, male and female, are on the whole very fit. Extracurricular activities, particularly sport and physical education, should be built into the school day. Sport is so important in developing character, confidence, fitness and team spirit.
	When mentioning schools we must not forget schools in rural areas. I know from personal experience that school transport has always been a problem whenever attempts have been made to schedule sports and other extracurricular activities in after-school hours. Children who live 20 or 30 miles from school cannot stay for sports and other extracurricular activities if there is no school bus or other transport to take them home.
	Only with the political will and resources to improve facilities for our youngsters will we see a real increase in the number of women participating in sport in the future.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on bringing this debate forward. I also congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on raising a good cross-section of points. One point must be that the problems facing women in sport are not much different from those facing men in sport. The difference is in the amount of attention given to those problems and the amount of cultural support given to those individuals to encourage them to take part in sport. I am afraid that much of that is historical. The only real question is when in the history of sport a shift will occur in people's attitudes, from merely saying "You can if you want to", to actual encouragement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, outlined a discussion in the other place which was quite revealing. I do not think that anyone from any of the major political parties would even think of giving that type of answer now. The world has moved on. This is not a political point; the point is about the development of sport. We have had many arguments about women's participation in sport. Noble Lords may have followed the arguments advanced by those who have tried to stop women participating in professional boxing. Whatever one's view on professional boxing, in an equal society, everyone should be allowed to take part. It is probably an extreme practical example of prejudice.
	We have to try to address the problems of women in sport in the light of that historical tradition. In that tradition, lads often talk about sport and occasionally play it. Unfortunately, many of them spend far too much time talking about it and not enough playing. One knock-on effect has been that women do not regard football or any other sport as theirs; it is someone else's preserve. Fortunately that tradition is being broken down, but it is not being broken down quickly enough. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, provided an expose of the attitude towards women sports players exhibited by a senior official whose name I will not try to pronounce. That attitude seemed similar to soft porn; there was not much else to it. The attitude had nothing to do with what the game is about or its spectator value.
	Even one of life's misogynists is reported as saying that women's football is a better spectator sport because there is not as much frenetic rushing about. I have often heard it said about women's tennis that shots and points must be fought for and built, rather than just belting them out. If we take the fact that women's sports will always be slightly different, we should start to revel in the difference and in the fact that it will be slightly differently structured.
	That means an attitude shift, which brings us to the media. People are used to looking at the same things in a sport—pace and power are the dominating factors that someone is looking for in a team. Women's sports rely on something else, which gives people an excuse for dismissing them, because they do not look like the real thing. It is a pretty bad excuse, which should not survive. I suggest that that is from where we must start to break it down. We must provide political leadership and put pressure on people to start to appreciate women's sports as being valuable in their own right and something that should be paid attention to.
	Those women's sports that get attention generally occur alongside men's sports. Tennis and athletics do well out of this. The major tournaments have both competitions going on at the same time, and the camera and the commentators are already there, so it works out well economically to cover both male and female tournaments. It has meant that these sports have always had a toe in the door and do better. We must try to encourage those in the know—the BBC has a great duty to take on a leadership role in this regard—to pay attention to women's sports in their own right as different events.
	As a rugby player, although now retired from regular games, I have recently enjoyed an experience where my chosen sport was briefly in the limelight. It took a long time to come, and if one looks at it now, rugby has retreated further back in most of the newspapers. It does better in the broadsheets—in the tabloids one would think that the game had ceased to exist until the next world cup or five nations tournament. Rugby union does much better than many other sports. If one takes on this culture, which is dominated by football and racing—national hunt or flat, depending on the season—it is not surprising that female sport is squeezed out. We must try to encourage the media to pay attention to the sports that are going on week in, week out that are not in their normal remit.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, talked about the traditional role of the sports magazine programme, which encouraged people to look at and experience other sports. That has been driven back into fashion of late. We must encourage our sporting bodies to look here. If we manage to get good examples of sport in our press and media, what will we do to encourage them to take it up?
	If he ever finds himself at St Peter's gate, the noble Lord, Lord Philips of Sudbury, can talk about what he did for amateur sports clubs and guarantee at least a shorter stay in Purgatory than most of us. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, talked about the importance of amateur sports clubs, which have probably saved our national sports from falling apart. They have saved various governments of different colours a great deal of time, money and effort in providing a sporting base. The existence of amateur clubs has meant that local government has not had to support sports in the way that would be necessary in other countries. They have provided their own clubhouses and coaching structures, but those are starting to creak. The Government are starting to recognise that, but I encourage them not to say that enough has been done, but to look at what else is needed. If they are taking on the educational programme for sport and physical well being—I could go on inter-relating this to the health position—these wonderful, unique institutions of ours will need greater support.
	My noble friend mentioned that he was against a move to make coaching compulsory. Let us meet them half way and ensure that the Government give greater help and incentives to coaching programmes. Basic safety courses should be made available and free for all sports, because the problem comes when you get bad coaching. If we can do that, we stand a chance of having this great resource that will get people involved in sport.
	Why is sport so important? People who take up a sport, as opposed to people who go to the gym, do not just do it for three weeks after Christmas. Men go on a diet, then go back three weeks later on, and say that they will come back when they are a little bit fitter after exercising by themselves, and then forget about it. Gyms make a lot of money, because everyone must pay for one year's membership. That does not help anyone to get fit. If someone has made a commitment to getting out there to compete on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday morning, they have a far greater incentive to keep themselves fit and healthy. Those people will have greater social interaction, because they will depend on team mates and the structure of the game. It has all those benefits.
	We hear that women's sport is being pushed away by social attitudes about fear and body image. Women suffer so badly in this department because they are under pressure to conform to certain stereotypes. Struggling to keep fit means being exposed to the danger of ridicule. We all must laugh at ourselves in our sporting careers, because we do not get it right all the time—some of us more often than others. The Government can provide encouragement in that regard. That brings us back around to good examples being provided in the media.
	Women's problems in sport are not that far removed from men's problems, but women need encouragement and support from government and the media. Without that we are ignoring a great deal of talent and the great benefits for more than half of our population.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on introducing this debate. I also congratulate him on the important contribution that he has made to sporting events, not only over the years, but over the decades. We should be grateful to him for that.
	In view of his opening remarks, I should say in the clearest possible terms that we on this side of the House are strongly in favour of encouraging greater participation in sport by girls and women, for all the reasons that other noble Lords have put forward: health, reducing obesity, social inclusion and so on. My noble friend Lord Moynihan would certainly take that view, and he regrets that he is unable to be here. He is in America, having meetings with members of the New York committee for the Olympics 2012 bid. He is sad that he is not able to take part in the debate this evening.
	I should declare an interest as patron of Herne Hill Harriers who, I am happy to say, have excellent girls' and women's teams with substantial ethnic participation. I am not sure what else I should declare, given the sudden appearance of my parliamentary golf partner on the Government Front Bench.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, drew attention to the unfortunate remarks made by the president of FIFA a short time ago, which show to some extent what we are up against. It is extraordinary, given that, partly because of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, as chairman and president of the Football Foundation, there has been a great increase in participation. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, gave the correct figures of an increase from 10,000 to something like 82,000 participants in women's football. That is not too pessimistic, but we clearly have a long way to go.
	The Motion is couched in terms of government measures. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, that the fact that we are making a bid for the Olympics in 2012 is important. Clearly we want to win, but the fact that we are making the preparations and putting in the investment in sport is important in itself. There are associated problems, as we said in an earlier debate, with transport. There were some hopeful remarks at the launch a few days ago, but I am not clear what the situation is on Crossrail. My understanding is that the Government are now committed to Crossrail, but not in time for the Olympics. That would seem strange; perhaps the Minister will let us know the position.
	Many noble Lords drew attention to the imbalance in media coverage, both on television and in the press. I was quite astonished a year or so ago when the BBC invited me, along with almost every sportsman one could think of, to a very large conference at White City—alas no longer with an athletics stadium. The discussion in the second half of the day was devoted almost entirely to problems of professional football club finance. Professional football gets a grossly excessive market share in terms of coverage. I enjoy watching it myself, but the share is not right at present.
	Also important is the question of role models, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. I think that we are making progress on that in various sports, including Paula Radcliffe in my own, who is an ideal role model for many youngsters. In the last season of equestrian events, where women have always been every bit as good as men, Pippa Funnel has totally outclassed the men. There are some sports where the balance between men and women is more appropriate.
	Remarks have been made about problems that still exist in golf clubs, although we are making progress. There is a huge difference in that respect between golf clubs in this country and, say, one where I am also a member in the Netherlands. However, the problem is not true of my golf club in London, which made a determined effort to try to bring in more schoolchildren to play. There were extraordinary events last weekend when a 14 year-old schoolgirl, Michelle Wie, just failed to make the cut by one stroke. She actually returned the same score as the winners of the British Open and the American Open last year, which shows the extent to which women are improving in sport generally, and indeed participating more and providing role models. The same is true of Ellen MacArthur, and one could talk of many others.
	Women now achieve times, distances and performances every bit as good as those achieved by men not all that long ago. The gap is closing. Some of that is related to technology; women pole vaulters now go far higher than male pole vaulters used to, but the pole is not the same as it used to be. If we are to encourage more women into sport—I speak very much of competitive sport; that is the important issue in the debate—we have to look at how people can progress up the ladder, and we have real problems in that. There is a gap between school and club, and it is not all that easy, particularly for girls, to continue after they leave school.
	I was speaking to someone in athletics yesterday who said that the number of participants in the London championships who were at school was very large. However, as they got older and went to university, the figure dropped very dramatically. Clubs play a very important role but, whatever the sport may be, they have to build up a greater link between the school side and the club side, otherwise girls simply drop out before they take part as women. Someone pointed out, however, that women sometimes come back at the age of 40 or so, but that may be a bit late to get into the Olympics if they have not participated previously.
	The other problem—it did not use to be the case—is the gap between club level and international level. It used to be possible to get into international teams while doing a full-time job. That is no longer true, and we shall suffer from that. In the past year or so, a number of very distinguished athletes have retired, and the back-up is not coming through because the progression between club and the so-called elite athletes is becoming too big. We have a real problem with that, particularly for women.
	I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, about the role of local authorities. It is tremendously important, but so is the issue of planning permission. Given that we do not have the same climate or environment as Australia, we have a problem so far as floodlighting is concerned, as I know from my experience of trying to arrange floodlights in London for a sports club. We need more floodlighting if we are to get girls as well as men participating more in sport in the evening. As we well know, there are problems with school facilities and so on. It is quite difficult to get schools to open their facilities to people during the evening. That is certainly a very important aspect of the matter.
	We are very short on time, but it has been a fascinating debate. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to problems particular to the subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, originally drew attention. We are at a very exciting time in sporting events because of the question of the Olympics and our participation. We certainly hope that it will be possible to encourage far more girls and women to participate, so that they can in a higher proportion be ready to take part in 2012. In the mean time, it is only 205 days until the start of the Athens Olympics, and we must wish all those who take part in sport on our behalf—men, women or girls—every success on that occasion. It has been a very helpful debate, and I welcome it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join everyone who has congratulated my noble friend Lord Pendry on having introduced the debate and on the way in which he did so. He should also be congratulated on the range and quality of speeches that he has encouraged. Everyone who has spoken is better qualified than I to speak on the subject, but I shall do my usual best to catch up so far as I can.
	Clearly the issue of participation by women in sport is a serious problem with which the Government are and must be concerned. The latest available figures from Sport England show that 89 per cent of school-age boys took part in sport to some extent in 1999. The figure for girls was a healthy 84 per cent, so that in itself is not the problem. But by the ages of 16 to 19, young women were 23 per cent less likely to take part in regular sport than young men of the same age. By the ages of 25 to 29, 75 per cent of men were still participating, but only 54 per cent of women. By the ages of 45 to 59, the figures had dropped to 47 per cent for men, and to only 35 per cent for women. We therefore agree that we have a problem.
	I must make a personal intervention here as someone who has tried to avoid competitive sport, in particular, all my life. After all, I used to go to the movies on games afternoons at school, but as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport covers the film industry as well, I cannot be wholly condemned for that. One cannot cover the whole field from personal experience. However, I would generalise from that by saying that I hope that no one here tonight or in government will think that their role is to force anyone into sport. Encouraging physical activity, yes; fighting ill health, certainly; but I hope and believe that we are concerned with those who want to take part in sport but cannot and who would like to be encouraged to do so.
	There are many reasons why women find participation in sport more difficult. The most important one is that, on the whole, women work much harder than men. If they are working for a living, they are also working at home in a way that men still do not. They are bringing up children in a way that men still do not. The demands on their time are significantly greater than those on men. My noble friend Lady Massey referred to that; it is true. That may be one reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, observed, women's participation in sport starts to increase again after the age of 40.
	There are certainly good reasons in public policy why the Government should be encouraging women to take part in sport and trying to remove barriers to their doing so. The first and most important, referred to by many noble Lords, starting with my noble friend Lord Pendry, but including my noble friend Lady Billingham and others, is the question of health. My noble friend Lord Pendry correctly referred to problems of osteoporosis and cardiac disease, but there are also concerns about the direct relationship between inactivity, obesity, and ill health. There is no doubt that that problem is increasing. More than one-fifth of men and nearly one-quarter of women are now clinically obese, and the proportion of obese children has risen in as little as a year by 3.5 per cent.
	So inactivity is a serious and growing public health problem that contributes to costs of £2.5 billion and to 9,000 premature deaths every year. Sport is one of many forms of physical activity that demonstrably address obesity. Organised sport forms only 8 per cent of the totality of activity. Nevertheless, it is clearly an important element in the fight against ill health. That is something that no government could ignore.
	However, the news is not all bad about participation in some sports. We have heard some eloquent speeches on that subject. Several speakers, especially my noble friend Lord Grantchester, have given details of the rise in the number of female players registered with clubs affiliated to the Football Association. That has grown from about 11,000 in 1993 to more than 63,000 in 2002. That is an extraordinary achievement. About 1.4 million girls regularly take part in some form of footballing activity. It is now the number one sport for girls and women. I have only one tiny disagreement with the noble Lord about football: he talked as if the sport was entirely amateur; I am glad to tell him that Fulham Football Club has full and semi-professionals in its women's team.
	My noble friend Lady Massey was eloquent about cricket, where there has been a 33 per cent increase during the past year in the number of women's clubs affiliated to the England and Wales Cricket Board. She mentioned the work of women cricketers in raising money for charity through the Lady Taverners. That is certainly a matter for congratulation.
	In Rugby Union, the number of women's clubs has risen from 12 to 230 in the past 20 years, with a fourfold increase in registered players during the 1990s. Although there are no firm figures yet, the sport reports that a high proportion of the estimated 10,000 people who have taken up or returned to rugby following the triumph in the World Cup have been women or girls.
	So we have two trends. Girls and women remain less likely to participate, but more girls and women regularly participate in sports that were once thought to be more or less exclusively the preserves of men. As my noble friend Lady Billingham said, we have come a long way but still have a long way to go.
	What is the Government's activity in the area? The main policy to which I shall refer is the national physical activity strategy, the first phase of which will be published this spring. That is being carried out by the Activity Co-ordination Team, which covers nine government departments, as well as Sport England, the Health Development Agency, the Local Government Association and the New Opportunities Fund. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the ministry responsible for local government, is actively concerned in that.
	In particular, we are considering barriers to physical activity by women, which several noble Lords have mentioned. Those include planning issues, to which my noble friend Lady Billingham and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred, the location or price of modern sports facilities and the need for wider use of school facilities, to which the noble Lord also referred. There are also psychological barriers: the fear of sport; the fear of losing in sport. There is the time needed to combine physical activity with work and home-making. There are travel problems—the need to encourage walking and cycling. All those are matters for that cross-government co-ordinated body, which is working on the subject and will be publishing a strategy within the next few months. Before I leave that topic, let me assure my noble friend Lady Billingham that the Activity Co-ordination Team is considering the particular issue of planning guidance for sports facilities.
	I shall now refer to the work of the Women's Sports Foundation, as have several noble Lords. I am especially well informed about it, because its representatives came to see me this morning. I was pleased to welcome Deborah Potts and Helen Donohue and, I hope, give them some help on how to approach the issue that they raised with me—media coverage. I accept everything that has been said about media coverage, particularly in the press, but that is a matter on which the Government have no power to act, other than to deplore some of the things that we have heard about. I was able to point them in the direction of the BBC charter review and Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, both of which ought to be helpful to them in attacking the issue of broadcast media coverage of women's participation in sport.
	The foundation works closely with the Government and the Sports Council in a range of measures that have greatly raised the profile of women in sport. It is very encouraging to hear about its work over the past 20 years. In recognition of that, the foundation's grant from Sport England was increased by 33 per cent to £200,000 in 2003–04.
	As a result of this and other activity, there has been a great deal of structural reform. The funding agreement that Sport England has with the Government includes a specific equal opportunities requirement. It ensures that gender and other equity issues are considered at the beginning of all publicly funded sports projects. Governing bodies must adhere to comprehensive equity agreements of their own if they are to qualify for funding, and those principles are adopted by each of the sports councils which recently published the UK Strategy Framework for Women's Sport. That strategy aims to create a sporting culture that fully values the contribution of women and creates the conditions necessary for their full involvement. This is starting to have an effect.
	I refer to this matter because of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I also recognise the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to the Football Foundation. That body has fully adopted equity principles and has provided £1.6 million for 30 women's and girls' coaching projects. All of the £83 million-worth of facilities that it has funded include full provision for women and girls. In the 20 Football Foundation projects that have been evaluated, participation rates have shot up by as much as 600 per cent.
	I do not want to leave that subject without saying a word about amateur sports clubs. I am grateful for the recognition given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to the amendment to the Local Government Bill which makes 80 per cent rate relief mandatory. That matter has not got very far: there are over 100,000 amateur sports clubs and only 558 have registered. There is a good deal of educational work still required.
	I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the discrimination that takes place in clubs such as golf clubs. He has been very eloquent on that subject. But those are private clubs, and, as he knows, how far the Government should intervene in private clubs is a controversial issue. Our first priority has to be to those facilities that receive public funding, and where we have a direct influence.
	I agree that, if we are looking at sport as a whole, the link between local amateur sports clubs and elite sports and the Olympics is essential. I appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Higgins, said about the Olympics. Incidentally, there is no problem of discrimination there, as 3,500 out of the 7,000 participants in the 1996 games were women. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right in thinking that Crossrail will not be completed—nor was it ever expected to be completed—in time for the 2012 Olympics in London. I hope we can convince him that the transport facilities for the Olympic sites will be first class.
	The noble Lord also mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is in New York speaking to the people responsible for its Olympic bid. It should be made clear that he is not sleeping with the enemy. He is 100 per cent behind our Olympics bid, and he took that commitment with him to New York.
	I would like to say a word about school sport and coaching—not in the sense that coaching should become compulsory, which was the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but because we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked, providing support and investment in coaching. We have 3,000 additional community sports coaches and 45 development officers in localities and regions. An explicit objective of our coaching programme is to increase the number of qualified coaches and those receiving high quality coaching among women and other under-represented groups, including ethnic minorities.
	Our PE, School Sport & Club Links programme addresses links between schools and clubs, building on the Girls in Sport Partnership developed by the Youth Sport Trust in partnership with Nike. I hope that it will be agreed that that is not bureaucracy. As a result, more than 200,000 girls in 2,000 schools have benefited directly from the Girls in Sport Partnership to date, and the lessons have been incorporated as part of training in sport, which has been delivered in every school in England.
	The noble Lords, Lord Pendry, Lord Faulkner, Lord Grantchester, Lord Addington, and nearly every noble Lord who spoke mentioned media coverage. I have referred to the encouragement that we are giving to the Women's Sports Foundation in its very necessary campaign. It has achieved something in its initiatives and is rightly proud of what it has done. But it is still necessary to make further progress. The foundation launched the national "Campaign for Coverage", as a part of which it seeks a condition covering women's sport in the BBC's charter. The Communications Act 2003 contains references to sports coverage and equality, although they are not linked. But in the charter review it is a legitimate objective to say that they should be linked.
	As has been said, there is now considerable coverage, not just of women in tennis and athletics, but of the Women's FA Cup Final on the BBC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred, the Rugby World Cup on ITV and BSkyB's coverage of football, cricket and golf. There has been considerable success in boosting women's participation in sport, despite the absence of meaningful media coverage. In football, the 1.4 million figure to which I referred is very significant and includes some very young people, who will want to follow their sports in the media and will form an audience for those sports. In the end, that audience will impose itself even on the most recalcitrant broadcasters. It is a difficult problem, which must be solved.
	In addition to the role model function, there are other forms of leadership. In women's sport we are now creating leaders at all levels. The chair and chief executive of UK Sport are women. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, the chief executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation is Margaret Talbot. Three of the nine Sport England regional directors are women, as is the head of the English Institute of Sport. Our Olympic bid is led by the inspirational Barbara Cassani. We have never had so many women at the top of sport. That provides the momentum that we need if we are to drive up participation. I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken that that has never been more necessary. It is important that we celebrate our achievement in leadership at all levels. The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, asked whether we had the political will; I hope that my response will convince the House that indeed we have the will to do just that.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I have less than a minute in which to thank everyone for taking part in this thoroughly good debate. There have been some powerful speeches, to which I would love to refer. I bet that we will not see any column inches in any of the newspapers about this good debate. That is part of the challenge for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Rail Transport

Lord Lea of Crondall: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their response is to the report prepared for the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group by Professor Phil Goodwin on the Future for Rail.
	My Lords, early last year the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group, with the assistance of the Rail Forum, invited Professor Phil Goodwin of University College London to prepare the report that we are debating. In a nutshell, his remit was to review where things now stand on the rail component of the 10-year transport plan announced in 2000 and updated in 2002. Incidentally, the update showed huge increases in the forecast levels of road congestion. Professor Goodwin's central assessment is that, although a year ago the picture was one of doom and gloom for the railways, with calls for a new Beeching, the latest analysis suggests that we can now see light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. But I shall try not to do an injustice to what is a very careful and balanced assessment.
	On the downside for rail the huge cost escalations on investment projects are still a major concern. But, on what one may paradoxically describe as the upside, the implications of growing road congestion and the logic of road pricing affecting both passenger and freight are beginning to transform the whole field of transport economics, with much more vigorous use of the price mechanism in prospect on the road side. The successful congestion charge in London, although there is much that can be said on the whole question, has helped tremendously to concentrate our minds.
	Goodwin's conclusion is that very large investments in rail must continue and the rates of return on them will start to improve as the cost-benefit arithmetic and customer decision making responds to the new market signals, in particular producing a modal shift to rail in many market segments, notably InterCity and in the conurbations. Goodwin is very careful not to claim that rail is the alternative to road for every journey because clearly it is not, but in terms of rail economics there is a high degree of validity for his thesis, with a proper degree of empiricism in his approach.
	The Goodwin report, with its impressive grasp of what I will term spatial economics linked to the growing desire of people and goods to move as a feature of a growing gross national product, will help to promote the intellectual underpinning of what I believe will prove to be the new policy mix for the next 20 years. The all-party group has warmly welcomed the report.
	The 10-year plan, the principle of which we are all as determined as the Government to sustain, has already played a vital role. It has marked out the pitch on which the different transport modes are competing. It sets out some of the rules indicating where the referee may from time to time need to blow his whistle. We recall that it is some three years since the 10-year plan was published to a very wide cross-party welcome, and in particular the robust reasoning for the need for large and sustained sums for investment, the headline sum for rail being £67 billion— roughly half public and half private—and, incidentally, in the same ball park as overall investment on roads despite the much higher usage of the latter.
	Incidentally, the Rail Regulator makes the point that it is he who authorises the actual payments through the access charging regime, but I believe it would be to throw out the baby with the bath water to deny the huge role played by the 10-year plan in setting out the ball park numbers. It is equally important to have a look at what we are getting for our money.
	It was always recognised that the investment would take time to show results. Nevertheless, the 10-year plan envisaged a 50 per cent increase in passenger traffic and no less than an 80 per cent increase in freight, albeit the latter from a very low base. We also know that these targets—I use that word for want of a better—have to relate to normal questions of rates of return on capital. We cannot decide levels of investment by waving a magic wand.
	This is the one time in my remarks that I will mention the relationship between the roles of the Rail Regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail, the train operators and, in the middle of it all, the Department of Transport. My one comment on this is that although on the face of it it seems odd that we have the regulator getting down to the detail of exactly when to extend line capacity between Rugby and Stafford, it is equally obvious, if there is a finite amount of capital which he can justify—and he has a role in putting pressure on contractors to perform—this institutional demarcation dispute, if I may use that trade union term, is not the central issue for the railways. There has already been a deluge of facile talk about it this week, with vertical versus horizontal integration, lengths of franchises, fat controllers and the rest of it.
	To return to the main theme. Goodwin analyses the economics, the inter-action between supply and demand, first by considering the supply side, which is the cost and efficiency of supply capital and whether this is constrained, and the demand side, therefore the price, and hence the level of traffic having regard to the competition and changing consumer preferences.
	Goodwin points out that when we ask who is to pay for investment there are only two choices: the fare payer or the taxpayer. He says that the so-called private finance is not a third way.
	Perhaps there is one interesting caveat to that. One financing model—Crossrail—provides for institutions and businesses to play a part in stumping up the money through some kind of levy (for wider social and direct business benefits that they can see) and the enhanced land values and property values more generally that this new spatial economics can capture. Apropos the previous debate, although Crossrail will not be ready in time for the Olympic Games, the non-stop seven-minute journey on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from St Pancras to Stratford will be.
	Recent statements by the AA, the RAC, the Freight Transport Association and others have, for the first time, fully recognised that not only is an expanding rail sector vital for the country, but also that a congestion-charging regime on the roads will have to play a part. That is in addition to the effects of the 48-hour week limit for commercial drivers affecting road far more than rail, and, to take a different point, the implication for centralised production and "just-in-time" distribution. I am reminded of the thought that all the sandwiches in Britain are now made in Peterborough, as someone put it. For all that I know, perhaps they are—apart from the tomato sandwich that I made myself last night.
	Perhaps I may raise a couple of points about road-charging regimes, showing the significant difference between the two possible scenarios. Scenario A does not have road charging on the relevant routes. Scenario B has road charging. Professor Goodwin demonstrates that the move from scenario A to scenario B is decisive in increasing the use of rail and, therefore, the rate of return on investment. It gives a decisive signal to the investment community. It is also side by side with getting a grip on costs—namely, the moment that the Treasury can start to believe seriously that there is a future other than pouring money down a big, black hole.
	In a nutshell, the new paradigm sees rail continue to charge at full cost, but, for the first time, with road also charging full cost. In particular, that is a revolution from the current marginal cost perception of the road journey—in other words, the perception that, "This is only costing me the cost of the petrol"—which hugely distorts the intermodal share at present.
	The report is packed full of powerful insights, of which I shall cite two. On page 11, there is the rather striking observation that the majority of investment for public transport—that is, rail—could in future be private, but that the majority of investment in private transport—that is, road building and road traffic—is public. It is pointed out on page 14 that the higher safety requirements for rail, in effect, raise the price of capital.
	On pages 23 and 24 of the report, Goodwin notes—in concluding what he dubs his "digression into roads"—that capacity constraints on roads, in many cases, are also paralleled by capacity constraints on rail. If we are searching for a satisfactory policy mix, the one thing that we cannot do, in effect, is to choke off road and to choke off rail traffic at the same time through lack of capacity on rail or through pushing up fares too fast. We must put the rail capacity in before we can do the switch—bringing to mind shades of the debate about London Transport and charging in London.
	From page 26, Goodwin addresses the strategic implications for rail of constrained demand for road movements. In my view, that is where we see the opening up of the most innovative and arresting part of his analysis. He demonstrates that whereas there is a rather slight impact on modal share through rail investment per se, there is a huge shift in its share, and, hence, benefit to the economics of rail, via the introduction of a charging regime on road for the relevant journeys.
	On page 26 there is the hypothesis that a reduction in car traffic of 5 per cent through a charging regime could increase demand for public transport by 50 per cent—he gives his reasons for stating that—thus transforming the profitability of investment. That will improve the economics of public transport and although it is only a hypothesis, it is a plausible one in some segments.
	The argument that I have summarised is, of course, much more complex and sophisticated than that and much traffic could disappear or go elsewhere. To what extent—this is not a good example but it is a possible contrary hypothesis—would road traffic simply shift outside the most congested period and, for example, move to the middle of the night? The spectre of us all driving through the middle of the night is more than a little far fetched, although many people in the south of England already seem to get up in the middle of the night to go to work. Surely there are limits on how far that will go.
	I also believe that at some point it would be useful to see an assessment of the income distribution consequences of charging regimes. Some de facto hypothecation has to take place so that the caricature figure of the man in the Bentley with the big cigar, scattering £50 pound notes left and right so that other people get out of his way, has to be combined with the principle of all the revenue going into public transport and with other measures to avoid problems for vital services, rural residents and so on. That is not an easy area about which to generalise.
	In conclusion, the report is pregnant with ideas across a broad sweep. In thanking Professor Goodwin for his work, my colleagues and I are very pleased to be associated with it. I very much look forward to this short debate and the response from the Minister.

Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for introducing the debate. It gives me an opportunity to sneak in under the wire and make a little stab at one or two points that interest me. I do not mean the Goodwin report, in particular, 10-year plans, logistics or many difficult, technical and complicated matters that my noble friend excels at explaining. I want to follow on from a contribution that I made to the October debate on the railways when I spoke about people, Investors in People, customers and staff. I make no apologies for taking every opportunity to speak on this issue, given that yesterday was a big debating day on the railways for our nation and yet very little was said about people—so there is probably a need to redress the balance now and again.
	My approach is that essentially business success, in whatever terms one sees it—whether in plans, investment or strategy—comes through, and with, people. The industry employs 40,000 to 50,000 people. How they are valued, managed, paid and most of all how they are respected, has a tremendous effect on the kind of railways that the public receive and how good the service is for customers.
	Following the debate that we had last October, the Minister of State was kind enough to write to me emphasising the importance of people. I very much appreciate that. He also explained in some detail the Centre for Rail Skills, a new body set up in the industry, and the work that it is doing. I agree that that is important, but I want to emphasise that skills training complements investing in people; it is not a substitute. The benefits for rail companies of achieving the national standard for Investors in People may, but may not, embrace skills training. Skills training cannot achieve cultural change as Investors in People can. Cultural change is much needed if we are to deliver the kind of service that people expect.
	In October I had a useful meeting with Mr Richard Bowker and his team, along with the chairman and the chief executive of Investors in People. I hope that that meeting bears fruit. Progress has been slow, not least of all because there has been much turnover in senior staff in the Strategic Rail Authority, particularly in the human resources and training positions. That always impedes progress. I am hopeful that in 2004 we shall see steady and meaningful co-operation between the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail companies and Investors in People UK. That will lead to more companies achieving the Investors in People standard and consequently there will be great change in the culture of the companies, the way in which the staff are valued and treated and, of course, in benefits to the customers. I just wanted to add that observation.
	On the question of customers, I said in October that I should like each of the rail companies to publish customer survey information, but that has not yet happened. Such information should be on the websites of all those companies. I hope that the powers that be will follow that up, as it is a pretty basic request. The SRA could request it and perhaps publish a compendium on league tables of customer service, which would allow customers like me to make comparisons. It would also enable us to have an even more extensive debate about what happens to the customer, which would be better than a debate that is based on anecdotes, moans and groans, and personal experiences, all of which are no doubt as valid as mine. I hope that my noble friend can look at some of those issues to see whether progress can be made.
	Finally, I want to have a brief word about something that is not often talked about, which I shall call the "passenger experience". Passengers want regular trains at the right price, but they also want a pleasant travelling experience, which is not always available. If the train is not comfortable and clean, we should discuss why that is so. I make no apologies for slipping into anecdote when I say that travelling from Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Victoria or Blackfriars stations are not pleasant experiences for customers. Trains are often dirty and ill-used. Food, litter and feet seem to take up more space on the seats than passengers more often than not. It is not unusual to find vomit and, even, urine in the passenger areas.
	Perhaps we do not like to talk about that, or we find it slightly embarrassing because it is not the rail companies' fault. In essence, it must be a kind of community problem that displays ignorance and lack of respect for one's fellow passengers. Sadly, at the end of the day, that seems to be where it lies. However, the rail companies and public representatives have a role to play in finding a solution, perhaps by improving manning levels at stations and on trains. Perhaps campaigning for cleanliness and high standards of respect for one another is all that is needed, as has happened in the past. Generally, it is a matter of showing concern. I wonder whether my noble friend feels that there should be more of a public debate about the passenger experience in addition to punctuality and price.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea, on securing this short debate, and on taking the lead in getting the all-party group to commission Professor Goodwin to carry out the work and then publish the report. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it should be a major contribution to the thinking that will surround the review of the 10-year plan. It should be essential reading for anyone who will be working on it, both within and without government. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber tonight has read it.
	I shall speak on two subjects: road congestion and rail. I shall start with a quotation on Goodwin's report from the Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, who said:
	"We will not be able to build our way out of all the pressures we will face. Road user charging has to be considered as part of sensible management of our roads".
	He wants to start a debate, which I welcome.
	I think that that will lead quite quickly to gridlock in certain areas, and that certain areas are quite important. Trafficmaster has done some work showing that congestion on the M1 has gone up by between 75 and 143 per cent in the past five years. On the M62—the trans-Pennine motorway—congestion has risen by between 164 and 247 per cent in five years. And that is not starting from an empty road.
	The quarterly survey of transport activity produced by the Freight Transport Association shows that the percentage of respondents who believe that congestion is getting worse has risen from 35 per cent to 60 per cent over the same period. The freight industry believes that congestion is worsening and I am astonished at the speed at which this deterioration is taking place.
	I agree with Professor Goodwin that some form of road user charging scheme will be essential. However, I recall that the Government took a slightly different view in the Ten Year Plan for transport: they said that traffic would grow but congestion would not. At the time some of us wondered about that. My noble friend Lord Lea commented that perhaps people will do all their travelling at night. While that might be one solution, the critical problem is the location of congestion spots around the country, and it needs to be addressed.
	We should accept that Professor Goodwin has identified a problem and that we need to look at the consequences. My noble friend quoted from page 27 of the report, where it notes that a 5 per cent reduction in road congestion could lead to a 50 per cent increase in public transport use—assuming that people still want to move around. I was struck by a comment made by a person at Transport for London whom I met last week. He said that the congestion charging scheme has been a success—I agree with him—and that road traffic has reduced. However, the scheme has caused people to transfer to the Underground and buses. He also remarked, "It may be that in 10 years' time the demand for buses will be so great that the bus lanes will not be able to cope". What shall we do at that stage? His solution was to build Crossrail. I shall not debate that proposal tonight, except to say that it would cover only one route. However, we have to think about future provision if the bus lanes no longer work. The Underground, as we know, is quite expensive.
	I hope that we do not find ourselves debating the figures in the Ten Year Plan, pondering whether congestion will increase by X or Y per cent. The key point Ministers should accept is that the main motorways in certain parts of the country, along with London and the other main conurbations, will face a serious problem with congestion, if they are not facing it now. It has to be dealt with. If we opt for nationwide road user charging, one compensation may be that people living in the countryside will suffer from less congestion. Those with no access to public transport should see a reduction in the cost of moving around. I am sure that that would be much more acceptable.
	On page 29 of Professor Goodwin's report is a comment by Sir Christopher Foster, former chairman of the RAC. He is credited with establishing the structure of the privatised railway. I am not sure whether that is a real credit, but we can leave it to one side. However, he challenges the Strategic Rail Authority to engage in a debate on the costs and charges for the use of road and rail—both direct and indirect. I think that he is right to ask for those figures. For over a year I sought information from the SRA on the costs and values of different types of rail transport—intercity, commuter and so forth—but I was told that that information is confidential because someone owns it. If we are to have a proper transport policy, one that means something, we have to be able to debate these matters on the basis of proper information.
	We do not want to see another failure along the lines of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. A previous government signed up to it and allowed the owners to charge exactly what they like for time immemorial. I am sure everyone now regrets that, so let us make sure that it does not happen again.
	I turn to the railways. Clearly demand for rail transport will grow—on the assumption that people will continue to want to move around—and so we have to ask the question: can rail do it, and will the Government allow it to do so? While I welcomed the Statement made on Monday, I have a few concerns which I have already mentioned. While it is right that we review the railway, we must ensure that we do not seize upon a cure that is worse than the disease. Let us remember that the ink is not yet dry on the last round of changes.
	Network Rail has been in place for around a year and is taking its contracts in-house. I shall come back to that point. The periodic review is a very important statement, made after detailed work by an independent regulator, about how much money Network Rail needs to run the network and the services specified by government for which it is contractually liable, in particular to the freight companies.
	My noble friend Lord Sawyer mentioned people. He was absolutely right to do so. Those people in the railways have been subjected to unprecedented change in the past 10 years: changes of employer; changes of job; changes of management structure; changes of rules and regulations—that will not be my major theme tonight. Those changes are clearly unsettling and sometimes unnerving. We should ask whether further massive change will help them to do their job better or secure a better railway. I am grateful for the interest that my noble friend, who has enormous experience, is showing in the issue.
	Since the Statement was repeated on Monday, we have heard predicable reactions. Many people have demanded that magic wands be waved instantaneously. I was pleased to see that the Health and Safety Commission bravely welcomed the review. However, it recommends that,
	"safety should be truly independent".
	I agree with that. It also recommends that safety should be,
	"free from . . . economic pressures".
	What is it trying to get at? Does it want a gold-plated railway that it will not fund? Nothing can be free from economic pressures, as has been said many times.
	As for being "able to hold the industry to account", it does so in a confrontational and unhelpful way. Half the reason for our current problems is everybody's fear of being taken to court for something or other. I agree that the rail safety watchdog should be independent, but I shall submit information and evidence to the Government that show that a change is necessary.
	Let us consider for a moment whether structural change is essential to deliver what we want, or whether a change in management, responsibilities and obligations is more important. I could speak further about safety. It needs to be independent, whether it be overseen by the Department for Transport or by a new regulator. We can debate that at length.
	There is a problem with the role of the SRA and Network Rail. There is overlap and confusion, which should be resolved. We can debate that issue later as well. Network Rail has taken maintenance in-house, which has more than doubled its staff in six months in a safety-critical area. I understand that some of the staff and managers from the contractors do not want to move. I worry about the continued safe maintenance of the railway while that is happening. Taking work in-house is a brave decision and I am sure that it will save money in the long term. I worry about the process, but I hope it works.
	Nevertheless, 10,000 or so rules and standards will need to be removed or amended if they do not meet the criteria that we and Ministers have mentioned. There are many examples, but I shall not go into them at this late hour. However, there are 10,000 of them. It requires a task force drawn from Network Rail, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and others proactively to challenge them. It should challenge not just the HSE, which does need to be challenged, but its own people as well. It also needs strong support from Ministers and the SRA.
	There have been calls for vertical integration and for TOCs to run the infrastructure of the railway. What makes them think that they can do it better than Network Rail does now? I read in the press this week that the TOCs have suddenly discovered that they are short of drivers, but I shall not go into that. The TOCs appear not to have quite understood that Network Rail is under severe financial regulatory pressures. I suggest that they are not always under the same pressures. If there is to be vertical integration, let EWS run the Midland Mainline; let Freightliners run the Southampton to Birmingham route; let GB Railfreight run the Great Eastern; and Direct Rail Services the West Coast Main Line, northern branch. That is no more stupid than the suggestion that the passenger people do it. That would mean massive change.
	I suggest that, rather than massive change and years of uncertainty and cost, it would be useful first to improve communications, to change attitudes and to define responsibilities clearly. That suggestion applies also to the SRA.
	The railways are consumed with bureaucracy—much of it self-inflicted, I accept. Some in the industry are fearful, as I have mentioned. Nobody seems to know who is doing what and few are prepared to speak out, for good reasons. However, improvements are taking place. Network Rail has existed only for a year.
	I suggest that the problems faced by the rail industry are to do with management and communication. I hope that it will be given the chance, under a great deal of pressure from Ministers, to solve those problems before the Government press the nuclear button and plunge the railways into another five years of uncertainty.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is unusual for an Unstarred Question to be so extraordinarily topical as that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall today. I congratulate him on his timing and on his speech. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I pay tribute to him for his persistence in persuading the other members of the All-Party Rail Group to commission the report produced so ably by Professor Phil Goodwin. I declare an interest as the group's treasurer and as someone who has had an association with the railway industry for more than a quarter of a century. I also add my appreciation to the Railway Forum, which paid for the report but had no influence over its content and its conclusions, which are Professor Goodwin's alone.
	I suggest that our task today—rather in the way that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has done—is to put the report into the context of the announcement made by the Government on Monday and to draw particular attention to the findings and recommendations that will best inform the review that is now taking place.
	I should also like to draw the attention of the House to some lessons that we learnt at the British Railways Board during the 20-odd years that I worked there from 1977 onwards. It is a pity that, once again, we shall not have the benefit of hearing in the debate from the dozen or so former Conservative transport Ministers who are Members of the House, particularly those who were responsible for the privatisation of the industry in the 1990s. But it will be nice to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, none the less.
	It is perhaps significant that the only one of the former Ministers who intervened during the discussion on Monday's Statement was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, whose period as transport Minister I was happy to describe as the golden age of post-war railway history.
	There is not time today to delve into the extraordinarily complex psychological relationship between the British people and the railways. To call it "love-hate" is far too simple. We do not have the huge sense of pride that the French have, for example, in their wonderful TGV network—although, as a frequent user of their provincial services, I do not detect in France a greatly superior system to our cross-country services, the frequency and convenience of which I believe are better than theirs.
	But where SNCF is fortunate is that it does not have an hysterical, unfair, biased, inaccurate and often mendacious national newspaper industry constantly on its back in the way that our railways do. The snide comment, the cheap joke, the ludicrous anecdote, the invented so-called "facts", and the denigration of the best efforts of hard-working public servants are all preferred—particularly in the tabloid newspapers, but sometimes also on radio and television—to an honest appraisal of the facts, or to giving credit where it is due.
	Let me take just one recent example—the suggestion by Network Rail that timetables should show slightly increased journey times to reflect engineering and other conditions on the line so that passengers can have more confidence in published arrival times. Our railways have included what is called "recovery time" in their schedules since timetables first started to be published in the middle of the 19th century. There is nothing underhand or dishonest in their doing so; our domestic airlines have done it for years. Indeed, it is not very long ago that flight times from Heathrow to Glasgow and Edinburgh were increased overnight from one hour to one hour and 20 minutes—an increase of 33.3 per cent—and yet there was no media outcry over that.
	When I travelled to Hull and back for a day trip last Saturday, the timetable had a few minutes added to it to take account of a diversion for engineering reasons via Hertford. In the event, Hull Trains did not need them and the two trains I caught were eight and 15 minutes early. Everyone on board felt good about it and many congratulated the train crews.
	The strange relationship between the British people and their railways is brilliantly described by Professor Goodwin in the chapter headed "The Paradox of Growing Demand for a Service in Crisis", which starts on page 32 on my copy. He quotes from a range of really damaging newspaper reports, which contain nothing but gloom and despair for the travelling public. He then states:
	"The question arises of explaining the buoyant, and for much of the period actually increasing, national demand for rail travel. This is not a debating point—one cannot dismiss the importance of the problems of service delivery—but the resulting picture of a crumbling system only barely managing to cater for customers who were deserting it in droves just does not seem to be demonstrated in figures for actual usage".
	The professor then quotes a series of statistics to prove that point including the SRA's own assertion that,
	"passenger kilometres travelled on the network have grown by 38 per cent since 1995 and now exceed the levels of 50 years ago, carried on a rail network half the size. Rail moves 20 per cent more people into central London than ten years ago".
	What we have, therefore, is an extraordinarily popular railway, used by more people than at any time since the mid-1950s, who refuse to be put off from travelling by train despite the denigration and abuse from the media.
	What is more, if Professor Goodwin's assessment of what will happen to congestion is correct, and the Government decide to adopt sensible demand management policies for our roads—as I fervently hope that they do—rather than disappear into the black hole of a massive motorway building programme, the need for more capacity on our railway will grow enormously.
	Some noble Lords may recall that during the debate on buses initiated in December by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I supported Mr Livingstone's return to the Labour Party for the reason that the success of London's congestion charging scheme should set the agenda for transport policy considerations across the country. I warmly welcomed, therefore, the press statement last July by the Secretary of State on the Government's road strategy, quoted by my noble friend Lord Berkeley:
	"We will not be able to build our way out of all the pressures we face. Road user charging has to be considered as part of sensible management of our roads".
	That statement is quoted approvingly by Professor Goodwin who says:
	"A sensible pricing system on roads would radically transform the economics of railways".
	He includes the startling statistic that,
	"a reduction in traffic of only five per cent could lead to an increase of up to 50 per cent in the actual or potential demand for public transport use".
	That is incredibly important because it puts directly into context all that the Government are attempting to do to improve the railways. It also destroys completely, of course, as Professor Goodwin points out, the ludicrous suggestion which has appeared in the Sunday Times and elsewhere in recent months that what the railways need is a new Beeching "to take the axe again to the railways".
	The reality is, of course, that many of the capacity problems that the railway is having to cope with now stem directly from the Beeching closures of the 1960s and 1970s and the short-sighted cost cutting that followed, such as the singling of the Southern Region's west of England main line and the Cotswold line from Oxford to Worcester.
	What a tragedy it is that the one north-south main line built to continental loading gauge and able, therefore, to take all the Channel Tunnel trains and freight—it would be interchangeable with the Continent—the Great Central, was closed in the 1970s. What a relief it is that Beeching's plan to close the north London line, now the most congested commuter railway on the system, was prevented after a public outcry.
	That brings me to the Government's Statement on Monday. I agree with much of what David Begg wrote in the Financial Times yesterday, in particular his assertion that it would have been better if this review had been announced in 1997 immediately after the Government came to power. I do not criticise them for that. They believed that they could make work the privatisation structure they took over. Few imagined that Railtrack would be so utterly incompetent, insensitive, profligate and arrogant. Few foresaw that the layer upon layer of legal and contractual agreements would inflate costs by a factor of between two and three, and that the fragmentation of the industry would create such a risk-averse and blame-avoidance culture.
	How interesting it is that the architects of this system, the spokesmen for the Conservative Party, now admit what a ghastly mistake it all was. Let us take Mr David Willetts who said in the Daily Telegraph of 13th December of last year:
	"It was the wrong model . . . I freely accept that this structure is not right. I would not defend the way in which we carried out railway privatisation".
	It is a bit late to admit that. But we have to move on and, naturally, I wish the Government's review well. I particularly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has asked Richard Bowker and the SRA to play such an important part in the process. Mr Darling's Statement also said that they had,
	"worked extremely hard with the industry, bringing greater leadership and strategic direction to the railways, and they do so with our full support".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/04; col. 1077.]
	I agree and hope that it has put paid to the negative and damaging rubbish that appeared in the Independent last week, following the planting of some unpleasant and malicious rumours.
	The new structure of the industry must feature an accountable, single point of contact for industry and government. I hope the review produces such a recommendation and puts at the head of that organisation an individual with proven qualities of leadership and an ability to change an industry for the benefit of its customers. The outcome that must be avoided is what Anthony Hilton described in an amusing, but accurate, piece in the Evening Standard on Monday. Speaking of the Government, he said:
	"Perhaps it yearns for the days of rail nationalisation when, according to an old Treasury hand who actually administered the policy, the civil servants pursued an active strategy of making sure the railways never became popular. There was method in their madness. They realised that if the rail system was used too intensively and more and faster trains were run, the track would begin to crumble and maintenance costs would soar. Whenever it looked as if rail passenger numbers were increasing too fast, the Treasury would cut the funding so that the old British Rail would have to whack up fares, and passenger numbers would plummet. Trains would then be cut, reducing the wear and tear on the track, and reducing the likely cost of maintenance and easing the strain on public finances".
	Mr Hilton adds:
	"I am not making this up, honest".
	I can assure him that he is not, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would probably agree, that is exactly how it was at the BRB. It is so important that we do not go back to those days and go down the crazy cul-de-sacs like the Serpell report, and the other efforts to reduce the size of the railway, particularly at a time when we should be planning to increase capacity for all the reasons that Professor Goodwin puts forward in his report.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we welcome Professor Goodwin's report and I join those who have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for giving us the opportunity to debate the issues raised. I particularly commend the fact that the report is brief—much briefer than is usual for such reports.
	Early on, Professor Goodwin refers to the establishment of:
	"a national Strategic Rail Authority for Great Britain, to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of our railways".
	I will argue that the SRA has not yet carried out those functions. To some extent, the reason is that it has been a prisoner of decisions taken before it was functional—namely the fact that the West Coast Main Line upgrade had been agreed and the Southern Region power upgrade was made inevitable by the decision that had already been made to replace most of the rolling stock on that network. So the majority of funds available for the SRA never existed. The SRA has been cursed by fighting between the bodies that surround it, to which the Secretary of State drew attention on Monday—namely the Rail Regulator, Railtrack, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Transport and, of course, the trade unions, who have not always smoothed the way of passengers. The SRA has also been the victim of thinking on a grandiose, rather than an incremental, scale. It has become part of the problem, rather than its solution.
	Apart from funding the massive losses of rail, why should we all care? Because Phil Goodwin argues that railways can be a significant part of the future for passengers and freight for the benefit of us all. Setting aside the usual suspects—who he identifies and, by the way, were mostly keen advocates of privatisation—a cost-efficient railway with investment targeted where it would do most good could make a significant contribution in accessing cities, major inter-urban journeys, and reaching our ports and airports. The main beneficiaries will probably be car users either as passengers or as drivers on less congested highways.
	Goodwin argues that we should make allowance for the disruptive effect of change in rail and road schemes. I believe that that makes a strong argument for allowing the planning of engineering possessions to be one of the tasks that should be considered for transfer to the major franchisees. Safety management, Goodwin argues, has become a millstone around the neck of the industry. I fervently support the review of all safety arrangements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, with responsibility being vested almost entirely in the new chief inspector of railway accidents in the Department for Transport.
	Goodwin goes on to raise the issue of the multi-modal studies. These, he says, were "very expensive". They represented a largely coherent package, with road and rail elements being interdependent. It was a pity that the SRA was somewhat lukewarm in its participation. They need revisiting after rail costs have been brought down, because they need to be implemented on a co-ordinated basis, as Goodwin argues, with the effects likely to be cumulative as road and rail schemes move together. I seek some assurance from the Minister that that will happen. Otherwise the very large sums already spent will have been wasted.
	A feature of the multi-modal studies was that some of the recommendations depended on traffic restraint through congestion charging. The technology to make that work has now been proven. The extension of congestion charging, however, depends upon local authorities being actively encouraged by central government to implement and develop such schemes. Can the Minister promise such encouragement? It also demands that public transport as an alternative to the car should be reasonably priced—which is largely not the case when one compares this country with many countries in Europe.
	However, I pay tribute to the Government—they deserve one or two brownie points particularly when they have done the right things—for their recent announcement on funding of the guided bus schemes in Luton and Cambridge, two extremely congested cities. We need such schemes to make traffic restraint and congestion charging acceptable. We need operators of buses, guided buses, trams and trains to bring forward reasonably priced proposals, bearing in mind that cities that are less congested present far better operating conditions, which in turn lead to lower costs.
	In talking about congestion charging I shall pause for a moment to say that the letter in yesterday's edition of the Times stating that 75 per cent of retail businesses in the London charging zone experienced a drop in trade makes no mention of the loss of American tourists, worries about terrorist outbreaks or the closure of the Central line. It was written more out of fear, or to stir up trouble, than as the result of any sound research. I think that we have to wait for that research to be published.
	We are led to two conclusions. First, the growth of road traffic will inevitably lead to demand management, especially in urban areas. People in the country have nothing to fear from that. In urban areas there are very limited opportunities to build road capacity or parking capacity. Secondly, better public transport will be needed. The choice of mode, whether bus, guided bus, tram or rail, will depend on the costs that attach to each mode. As things stand the bus will inevitably win, as it has in London. Rail can win only if it exploits capacity to the maximum and reduces the costs of enhancing services well below the present level. That is why the review announced on Monday by the Secretary of State for Transport is so important, indeed crucial, to the industry. There can be no increased role for rail in the future unless costs are quickly and dramatically controlled.
	I was shocked to learn yesterday that the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority has written to stakeholders asking them to let him have their views in a coherent and organised way, so that he can provide the Secretary of State with advice that represents the views of the whole industry. I would not wish the views of stakeholders to be limited or moderated by such a channel of communication. The SRA controls the franchising process—that is its main function. Those seeking to win or to participate in that process may not wish to express views through that means. If they think that their views are contrary to those of Richard Bowker, they will not express them, because they will feel that they will be disadvantaged in some way in the franchising procedure. Nor may they wish to come to the eye of the foul-mouthed executive director of communications employed by that organisation, who is unfit to hold public office.
	The SRA is part of the problem, in common with other organisations who are no doubt—one has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—hurrying to protest the fact that they should all remain independent. The role of the SRA should not be above question. It contains people of definite views and priorities. Those views are not universally shared. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the review is open to all who have a point of view, and that access to the review will be plain and simple. In that review, I hope that simplicity and devolution will have their part.
	Above all, I commend to the Minister the good sense written in today's edition of the Times by Simon Jenkins. There have been many articles on this subject, but this one is written by someone who knows something about the railway. I reiterate my offer made from these Benches on Monday that we are willing and indeed anxious to help and to support a radical review. We are not willing to stand by and watch a review that does not stop the turf war of various organisations and which does not legislate quickly and decisively to stop these if necessary; a review that fails to dramatically stop waste and bureaucracy. A review, which I hope we can support, should lead to an improvement in services and a reduction in costs.
	Professor Goodwin's report is welcome, as it shows what may happen. I stress the word "may". We, and I hope that I speak collectively between these Benches and the Government, must reach out to get the future that he suggests may be there.

Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome Professor Goodwin's report. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for asking this Question. The Statement made on Monday by the Secretary of State, Mr Darling, clearly showed that this is an important topic which comes high up not only on the political agenda, but also strikes a chord with a large majority of the public and the media.
	As noble Lords have shown in their excellent contributions to this debate, this subject is not only an important one, but one which covers a broad area. I hope therefore that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not confine my comments strictly to the report per se, but speak to the subject of the report in general.
	In order for us to consider what the future holds for rail, we must learn the lessons from the past. In 2000, the Labour Party, three years into its first parliamentary term, made huge promises on the issue of rail, and launched an ambitious, and much talked of, 10-year plan. Mr Prescott argued in the foreword of the document presenting that plan that it,
	"will deliver the scale of resources required to put integrated transport into practice".
	The Government listed great improvements, which were to all be in place by 2010, including improvements to service quality, more punctual and reliable trains, less overcrowding, and modern and increased capacity on the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines.
	I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that the plan hit troubled water almost immediately. The tragic rail crash at Hatfield, which left many dead and injured, exposed the problem of gauge corner cracking on tracks. That meant that the Government had to address the problem and, as a result, there was a considerable lowering of speed limits, which inevitably caused a "sharp fall in performance", in the Government's own words.
	The bureaucracy that the plan implemented has also been a failure, I am sad to say. The Strategic Rail Authority, which has come in for some fairly hard words during the debate, was created to,
	"provide a focus for strategic planning of the passenger and freight railways".
	Sadly, it has merely added to the bureaucracy on railways, which also consists of the Health and Safety Executive and the Rail Regulator. That bureaucracy has brought uncertainty over regulation and has been a huge cost to the taxpayer. The current regulatory regime costs more than £110 million a year, an increase of at least £5 million on last year, in direct operational costs alone. It absorbs a similar sum again in terms of industry resources.
	Staying with money, I should say that this month the SRA's annual report was leaked to the Independent. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was referring to. It stated that the current £54 billion earmarked under the 10-year plan was being used up simply to maintain the present railway network, with nothing left for the improvements which the rail users had been promised. The report was considered unfit for publication. The Department for Transport has now said that a new report will not be published until the summer. I do not know whether that is true; perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny it. If the publication of the report has been put off until the summer, there must be some reason for that.
	So what has the turning sour of all those great ideas meant for the people who really matter, the travelling public? The statistics speak for themselves. The SRA measures rail performance using a public performance measure (PPM) which combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single measure. The PPM of all operators has fallen since 1998. Only 84 per cent of trains ran "on time" in 2003–04, and the number of complaints per 100,000 journeys increased by 6 per cent between 2002 and 2003. Yet during that period of late trains and increasing dissatisfaction among those using the trains, fares increased markedly. In fact, they have increased above inflation for all the years that Labour has been in power. In short, rail travel in this country is unreliable, overpriced and underfunded.
	All that we know, and it is well documented. Now we have the helpful report from Professor Goodwin. He suggests among a great many other things that the,
	"role that public transport is called on to perform within transport strategy as a whole is greater than was assumed to be the case at the time of the launching of the Ten Year Plan, not less".
	It is clear that the railways are in a mess, although a great number of journeys are still most successful. I am always very successful whenever I go on a journey. Even when I was told last week that a crane had fallen on the track and that I would be a very long time getting from Waterloo to Winchester and back again, I am glad to say that I had no problem either way.
	Now is the time for the Government, and in particular the Transport Minister, to say that the Government were wrong and are sorry. Mr Kim Howells admitted on the "Today" programme that that was the case. I would very much welcome that. During the short debate after the Statement earlier this week, my noble friend Lord Astor said that the Conservatives admit that we did not get the interface right between the railway companies and Railtrack during privatisation. The Government and Mr Darling in his Statement also said that some good things came out of privatisation and welcomed the innovation of the various railway companies. They have carried many more passengers than before.
	The Government have rather wasted three years trying to implement that ambitious plan, which has now been discredited. However, we should now be concerned with the future. The railways need less bureaucracy and more long-term investment from longer franchises. The Government must consider reducing the regulatory burden on rail, so that the supply of services can respond to individual demand, rather than to dictation from the centre.
	With congestion charging on the roads, new taxes planned for the motorways and concern about the environment at an all-time high, people are looking for a safe, value-for-money alternative to travelling by car. The railway currently only partially provides such a service. I, for one, will be keeping a close watch on the Government to see whether they carry out the review promised in Monday's Statement and, more importantly, act to cut bureaucracy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join all the other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking my noble friend Lord Lea for introducing the debate on the report. He stuck closely to his last by reviewing the main issues contained in the report—a report that has arrived at an opportune time and which we regard as thoughtful and full of well- informed analysis that will help us while we are engaged in a significant review of the railway.
	I do not say that the Government subscribe to all the report's conclusions, but it is a welcome contribution to the debate. I congratulate the All-Party Group on Rail on having commissioned the report and my noble friend on introducing and producing an extremely well-informed debate that leaves me with a range of issues to which I must respond.
	One point that I had not anticipated, which does not arise directly from the report, but which stands on its own merits, is that made by my noble friend Lord Sawyer. He is right. Of course we preoccupy ourselves with the two great criteria of the railway service: punctuality and reliability. He is quite right: we also need to pay attention to the question of the acceptability of the service once one is on the train. He suggested that that required some wider societal measures.
	We have a range of strategies to improve behaviour on trains. Many of us can bear testimony to rail journeys where the train has been reliable and punctual when it deposited us, but we have endured many unhappy minutes, or even hours, on the train because of the conduct of a small number of people. We must address that issue.
	The report emphasises the interaction between rail and road policy, which is of great importance. The Government recognised that, which is why both the 10-year plan and the White Paper sought to address those relationships in an integrated manner. I welcome the report's acknowledgement of the innovative concept at the heart of our 10-year plan.
	When the plan was published, it was widely welcomed for delivering a much-needed step change in transport investment. It provided an unprecedented long-term commitment from the Government and put an end to decades of stop/start funding and short-termism. It envisaged total spending, including private investment, of £181 billion over 10 years. That included public expenditure of £22 billion for strategic roads; £33 billion for the railways; and £52 billion for local transport. Significant progress has already been made towards delivering that increased investment under the plan.
	Let me mention another point raised in the debate. My noble friend Lord Sawyer mentioned the morale of those who serve on the railways. Investment is an important part of morale, because it suggests that the Government, acting on behalf of the wider public, have faith in the service that the railways can provide, if they are given the tools to do the job. I shall talk more about the Strategic Rail Authority later, but let me emphasise to my noble friend that the authority takes the skills issue seriously. It has set up a rail skills exercise. It is concerned that we train people effectively. That point is well made by the noble Lord, and accepted by us.
	Our priority now is to focus on delivering the improvements needed to modernise our transport networks, and to make the most cost-effective use possible of the huge increases in investment that the plan provides. We are now spending £250 million each week to improve transport in this country, in order to make up for what has been recognised by noble Lords on all sides of this House as decades of under investment. That is an increase in investment of 65 per cent over the past three years.
	We are also investing in major improvements to our road and rail transport infrastructure, and the increased investment is making a difference. For example, in the past year, we have seen major infrastructure projects open, such as the M6 toll road and the first phase of the Channel Tunnel rail link, which was completed on time and to budget. Credit is deserved for that. Noble Lords will also be aware of many other major infrastructure projects where work is currently under way, such as the widening of key sections of the most congested parts of the motorway network, and the huge investment in upgrading the West Coast Main Line. The increased investment underpinning these projects is benefiting individuals and businesses alike.
	Strategy must be able to adapt and accommodate developments, changing circumstances and new opportunities. That is why a review of the 10-year plan is now under way. We need to ensure that our long-term strategy remains fit for the challenges of the next decade. Events such as Hatfield have implications. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made reference to this matter. We need to accommodate features of such significance properly in our planning. That work is in progress, and it will culminate in the publication of a rolled forward transport phased strategy later this year after the spending review has been announced.
	The noble Lord, Lord Luke, chided us on the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report. Does it not make great sense that the report should relate to the Government's spending review that is taking place over the next few months? That therefore fits in to a strategy that makes sense: resources allied to objectives.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, introduced the matter of whether the structure of the review means that the Strategic Rail Authority will have a monopoly on this. The Strategic Rail Authority will certainly play a very important role in co-ordinating a great number of the representations from the industry. Ministers have made clear that contributions made directly to the department will be welcome. We are open-minded about the situation. We recognise that the developing expertise of the Strategic Rail Authority puts it in a position where it can co-ordinate responses and provide coherence to the representations that come in.
	On the issue of roads, the Secretary of State published a discussion paper Managing Our Roads, to which a number of my noble friends paid considerable credit, because the concept of managing the road might also mean managing demand, which is an important part of Professor Goodwin's report. We have to look at the question of managing demand, and along with that we need to look at the question of congestion and road pricing. The Secretary of State adopted a forthright, far-seeing and courageous position when he said that we do need to look at the feasibility of road pricing. The London congestion charge is an important aspect of that. It has been broadly successful. Noble Lords say that we may eventually run into congestion of buses in bus lanes. By Heavens, my Lords, I look forward to that day. We still have the problem of cars and lorries being inconveniently parked in bus lanes. I speak with some fervour because, 20-odd years ago, in a different guise, I introduced a Bill to produce bus lanes in London. I am therefore very pleased by suggestions that they will develop an even more crucial role in the future.
	On road pricing generally, we recognise the value of the relationship between road and rail. I wish that I could be as optimistic about propositions made in the report and by my noble friends, in particular, that road pricing will have automatically beneficial effects for rail through a modulated shift from road to rail. Would that it were so easy, predictable and effective. At present, our studies indicate that road pricing probably shifts the times of journeys rather than the mode of travel. We should not make that automatic assumption—I do not suggest that Professor Goodwin did, but he placed great emphasis on it. We need to evaluate and look carefully at the issue, but there is always the possibility that the operation of a road pricing system at certain hours merely squeezes traffic on to the road at other hours rather than resulting in a move to rail.
	I appreciate the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the necessity of road management and his warm support for it. My noble friend Lord Lea also emphasised that it was a crucial part of the report. I do not decry it—very far from it—it is an important contribution to the debate, and the matter requires further analysis and work. However, I have adopted the stance of not being overly optimistic that the proposition translates easily into government policy that would solve the situation as readily as one might think.
	As a result of the history of underinvestment, it has been necessary to put in place substantial increased investment. That is why the Government announced public investment of £33 billion over 10 years, doubling railway investment over a five-year period. Total investment in the four years to 2006 will be almost three times that at the time of privatisation. Those are very significant figures, which will make possible the effective use of the railway against a background in which we will have the capacity to do so. That has been warmly welcomed on all sides of the House.
	The recent regulatory review, published last December, confirms that the cost of upkeep of British railways is £1.5 billion a year more than was thought necessary just three years ago. The review implied that Network Rail inherited a business from Railtrack with unit costs substantially higher than they should be. Network Rail is now tackling those inefficiencies and working to bring down costs. But taxpayers and fare-paying passengers need to know that their money is being well spent and that increased spending will improve performance. In short, cost control is essential, and the review that we are carrying out will address those issues. The statement on Monday pointed out that we cannot expect to use the investment successfully unless we concentrate on ensuring that there are clear points of decision.
	Many illustrations have been made in the debate today. My noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley referred to safety. The fact that there are so many regulations and so many fingers in the pie means that the essential priority of safety—who would deny that?—has been translated into a range of inhibitions regarding the railway. That has not guaranteed safety so much as inhibited the railway's capacity to perform. That is why we need the review—there are a number of areas in which it is necessary.
	The Strategic Rail Authority will have a role in the review. Its co-ordinating role will be enormously important, and the Government are confident that it will address the issues within a very short timescale. We need those submissions and the position before us in the next few months so that we can, coterminous with the development of the public spending review, have in place a strategy and resources.
	We want to build on the review to create a railway which is responsive and operates in the public interest, while at the same time recognises the value of the private sector and respects the legitimate interests of investors. The report by Professor Goodwin highlights some of the key issues involved in all this. They will form part of the Government's review. I am very grateful that the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group got to work on this at a very early stage and therefore has helped to prompt this debate, which my noble friend Lord Lea introduced so ably this evening, getting the general debate, following Monday's Statement, off to a very sharp, prompt and effective start.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.